Ita/1044/2008 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Wipro Ltd

IN THB HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATEBD THIS THE 0 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2014 PRESENT_ THR HON' BLE MR.JUSTICK N.KUMAR ANT) THR HON' BLE MR.JUSTICK B.MANOHAR ITA NO.1044/2008C/W. ITA NO.1045/2008 IN ITA NO 1044 OF 2008 BETWEEN| 1.THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXCRNTRAL CIRCLEC R BUILDING,QUEENS ROADBANGALORE. 2 THERE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF [INCOME TCENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(3)C R BUILDING,QUEENS ROADBANGALORE .. APPELLANTS (By Sri. JEEVAN J.NEERALGI -— ADV. M/S WIPRO LTD.DODDAKANNELLISARJAPUR ROADBANGALORE — 560 035 —. RBSPONDBENT| (By Sri.RAJESH CHANDER KUMAR - ADV.) THIS ITA IS FILED U/S.2600-A OF I.T.ACT, 1961ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 13-06-2008 PASSED IN]ITA NO.659/BNG/2007, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR|1999-2000, PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BEPLEASED TO: iaFORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OFLAW STATED THEREINLAW STATED THEREIN tl.ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THK ORDERPASSED BY THE IITAITL BANGALORE IN [ITA 699/BNG/2007 DATED 13-06-2008, CONFIRM‘THKORDERSOF|THEAPPELLATECOMMISSIONBRANI)ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL)CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE.PASSED BY THE IITAITL BANGALORE IN [ITA 699/BNG/2007 DATED 13-06-2008, CONFIRM‘THKORDERSOF|THEAPPELLATECOMMISSIONBRANI)ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL)CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE. ITA NO 1045 OF 2008 BETWEEN 1.THRB COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXCENTRAL CIRCLE, |C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD,BANGALORE 2 THER ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXCENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3)C.R. BUILDING, ©QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE .. APPELLANTS | (By Sri. JEEVAN J.NEERALGI —- ADV. AND M/S WIPRO LTD DODDAKANNBEBLLSARJAPUR ROAD BANGALORE 35 ... RESPONDENT (By Sri. RAJESH HANDER KUMAR - ADV. ) THIS ITA FILED U/S.260-A OF I.T.ACT, 1961 ARISINGOUT OF ORDER DATED 13-06-2008 PASSED IN ITA NO.|654/BNG/2007 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-1999,PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLEKE COURT MAY BR PLEASETO: |FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN, ll.ALLOW THER APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERPASSED BY THE [TITAITL BANGALORE IN [TA 694/BNG/2007 DATED 13-06-2008, CONFIRM)THE.ORDERSOF|THEAPPELLATECOMMISSIONER.ANDASSISTANTCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRALCIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE. |PASSED BY THE [TITAITL BANGALORE IN [TA 694/BNG/2007 DATED 13-06-2008, CONFIRM)THE.ORDERSOF|THEAPPELLATECOMMISSIONER.ANDASSISTANTCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRALCIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE. | THRSKB APPBALS COMING ON FOR HRBRARING THDAY, N.KUMAR J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT These appeals are preferred by the Revenueagainst the orders passed by the Tribunal as well the —First Appellate Authority which have set aside the orderpassed by the Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax,imposing penalty. ”.. The assessee had claimed deduction ot bad anddoubtiul debts and also royalty for the assessmentyears 1998-99 and 1999-2000. The assessing authoritydisallowed on the ground that unless the assesseeestablishes the said debt as bad and doubtful debts androyalty, it is not entitled to deduction. However, in thesubsequent years as the debt became bad and doubtfuland as in the previous years, the said benefit had notbeen granted, assessee’s claim for bad and doubtfuldebt and royalty was allowed. Now, penalty was.imposed on the ground that the assessee had furnishedinaccurate particulars. However, the said order came tobe set aside both by the First Appellate Authority as well as the Tribunal on the ground when in the subsequentyears the benefit has been granted, it is not a case offurnishing inaccurate particulars and therefore, theyhave set aside the penalty. It is a concurrent finding.Even otherwise the said orders of the AppellateAuthorities are just, proper and in accordance with lawand therefore, we do not see any merit in these appeals. — Appeals are dismissed. — od/- JUDGE. |sd/-|JUDGE|