Hon’‘ble Court In Case Of Cit v. Tata Elxsiltd, ?”

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU|ON THE LI DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019| BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH| AND| THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD|INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 35/7 OF 201 BEI|WEEN 1.THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIT(A) ![()]FLOOR, BMTC BUIDLING 80 FEET ROAD,KORMANAGALA,| BENGALURU - 560 O95. 2.THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), 2 FLOOR, BMTC BUIDLING 80Q FEET ROAD, KORMANAGALA BRNGALURU — 560 O95. _. APPELLANTS (BY SRI. ARAVIND K. V, ADVOCATE) AND" M/S. INFOSYS LTD., ELECTRONIC CITY HOSUR ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 100. .., RESPONDENT| (BY SMT. TANMAYEE RAJKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR| SRI. T. SURYANARAYANA, ADVOCATE) THISINCOME|TAX.APPEAL|ISFILED|UNDERSECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT|OF ORDER DATED 10.11.2017 PASSED IN IT{TPJA NO.|942/BANG/2015, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-2007, VIDE ANNEXURE-C, PRAYING TO (I) FORMULATE|THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE.|(II) ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS|PASSED BY THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,BENGALURU IN IT(TP)A NO. 942/BANG/2015 DATED.10.11.2017, VIDE ANNEXURE-C, CONFIRMING THE ORDER|OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER AND CONFIRM THE|ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF|INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BENGALURU AND ETC,. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,RAVI MALIMATH Ji ADELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the appellants. | 2. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the following substantial question of law arises for|consideration in this appeal. DWhether on the facts and In _ thcircumstances of the case and in law, tne)Tribunal is right in allowing in setting aside re-computation of section 10A made by assessingauthority by following the Judgment of this| Hon’‘ble Court in case of CIT vs. Tata ElxsiLtd, ?” 3. However, the said question of law has beenansweredIn|HCLTecnnologieésLtd.VS, Assistant.Commissioner of Income-tax, (2018)91 taxman.com4é60)0!,, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.Hence, the substantial question of law raised in this appealis answered in favour of the assessee and against the|revenue. The appeal is dismissed. SD/- | JUDGE| SD/- JUDGE nv