Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Yokogawa Indialimited} Reported In(2012) 204 Taxman 305 (Kar}Jafter

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE DATEBD THIS THE 0 DAY OF JULY, 2014. PRESENT: THR HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE N.KUMAR. AND THR HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICHK B.MANOHAR Income.Tax Appeal No : 249 of 2007 BETWEEN 1.The Commissioner ot Income Tax. Central Circle, C.R. Building, Queens Road, Bangalore. 2.The Assistant Commissioner of Income taxCircle — 12(2), Bangalore.Circle — 12(2), Bangalore. . Appellants (By Sri K.V. Aravind, Advocate) AND: M/s.Sun Microsystems India Pvt., Ltd.,9[.#]Floor, Divyasree Chambers,Langford Road,Bangalore — 560 O25. ..Respondent (Bys Sri Suman K.Suresh, Adv. ForM/s.Universal Legal) PITA 249/2007 | This ITA is filed under Section 260-A of I.T. Act, 1961|arisingOUTot order.dated15.09.2006.passed1N ITA|No.3926/Bang/2004, for the Assessment year 2001-2002,|praying to (i) formulate the substantial questions of law statedtherein; (ii) allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by|the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench in ITA)No.3926/Bang/2004 dated 19.09.2006 confirming the order ofthe Appellate Commissioner and confirm the order passed by theAssistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 12(2),Bangalore. This ITA coming on for hearing this day,N, KUMAR Jdelivered the following: JU DBGMENT This appeal is preferred by the revenue againstthe order passed by the Tribunal which has held that|the assessee would be entitled to set off against the|losses sustained in Section 10A of the Income Tax Act|(for short ‘the Act?) by setting off the interest income|and rental income by invoking Sections 7O and 71 of|the Act. 2 |The very same question was the subjectmatter of decision of this Court in the case of! COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. YOKOGAWA INDIALIMITED} reported in(2012) 204 Taxman 305 (Kar}jAfter >ITA 249/2007 | elaborate discussion, this Court has answered the said|question in favour of the assessee and against the|revenue. It is submitted that the said judgment is now|Challenged before the Supreme Court and is pending|consideration. 3 oLearned counsel for the revenue submitted|that the judgment has no application and in fact the|said judgment is to be applied in favour of the revenue.|We do not find any substance in this submission. 4Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with|liberty to the revenue to seek for revival of this appeal|in the event the judgment of the Supreme Court is rendered in their favour. ah*. Sd/-|JUDGE Sd/-|JUDGE