Ita/143/2014 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Karantaka Power Corporation Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1/ DAY OF MARCH, 2020 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNAINCOME TAX APPEAL NO.143 OF 2014 BEI|WEEN 1.THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAXC.R.BUILDING,C.R.BUILDING, QUEENS ROALD, BENGALURU, 2.THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, CIRCLE — 11(5), © RASHTROTHANA BHAVAN, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU, _.. APPELLANTS | (BY SRI K.V.ARAVIND, ADV.) AND" M/S. KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED, “SHAKTHI BHAVAN’,.82, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 OOL. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI A. SHANKAR, SR. ADV. FOR SRI LAVA M., ADV.) THIS|INCOMETAXAPPEAL|ISFILEDUNDER|SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT|OF|ORDER|DATED: 11.10.2013.PASSEDIN|LIANO.711/BANG/2011, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200/72008 PRAYING TO: FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF,LAW STATED ABOVE.LAW STATED ABOVE. ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS|PASSED BY THE ITAT, BENGALURU IN ITA’NO.711/BANG/2011|DATED11.10.2013ANDCONFIRMTHE|ORDER.OF|THE|APPELLATECOMMISSIONERCONFIRMING.THE|ORDER|PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF|INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 11(5). BENGALURU.PASSED BY THE ITAT, BENGALURU IN ITA’NO.711/BANG/2011|DATED11.10.2013ANDCONFIRMTHE|ORDER.OF|THE|APPELLATECOMMISSIONERCONFIRMING.THE|ORDER|PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF|INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 11(5). BENGALURU. THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL COMING ON FORHEARING, THIS DAY,ALOK ARADHE J,MADE THEFOLLOWING: JUDGMENT This appeal is filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), by the)Revenue, being aggrieved by the order dated 11.10.2013| passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru,|in ITA.No.711/Bang/2011. 2. The following substantial questions of law are proposed for consideration in this appeal: 7WhetherOP)thefactsandInthecircumstances of the case, the tribunalwas correct in noiding that the assesseeIs entitled to deduction under sectionSOIA of tne Act without setting off of theloss of loss-making units against tneprofits of the profit - making units,witnout taking into consideration thatdeduction is provided to tne eligiblebusiness and not for an undertaking?circumstances of the case, the tribunalwas correct in noiding that the assesseeIs entitled to deduction under sectionSOIA of tne Act without setting off of theloss of loss-making units against tneprofits of the profit - making units,witnout taking into consideration thatdeduction is provided to tne eligiblebusiness and not for an undertaking? ?.WhetherOTPthefactsandIn.thecircumstances of the case, the tribunalwas correct in nolding that section 115JBwas not applicable to tne assessee inview of Explanation -— 3 to section 115JBwitnoutappreciatingthettheamenament is applicable only witn effectfrom 1.4.2013 relevant Assessment yearPOLS -— 142circumstances of the case, the tribunalwas correct in nolding that section 115JBwas not applicable to tne assessee inview of Explanation -— 3 to section 115JBwitnoutappreciatingthettheamenament is applicable only witn effectfrom 1.4.2013 relevant Assessment yearPOLS -— 142 3. Whether on the facts and In the'circumstances of the case the Tribunalwas correct in accepting tne aaditionalground raised regarding applicability ofsection 115JB without appreciating thatthe assessee has neither raised the issuebefore ne Assessing officer or before theAppellateCommissioner and|theassessee itself in it’s return of Incomehas admitted the applicability of section115JB of the Act?”circumstances of the case the Tribunalwas correct in accepting tne aaditionalground raised regarding applicability ofsection 115JB without appreciating thatthe assessee has neither raised the issuebefore ne Assessing officer or before theAppellateCommissioner and|theassessee itself in it’s return of Incomehas admitted the applicability of section115JB of the Act?” 3. Whether on the facts and In the'circumstances of the case the Tribunalwas correct in accepting tne aaditionalground raised regarding applicability ofsection 115JB without appreciating thatthe assessee has neither raised the issuebefore ne Assessing officer or before theAppellateCommissioner and|theassessee itself in it’s return of Incomehas admitted the applicability of section115JB of the Act?”circumstances of the case the Tribunalwas correct in accepting tne aaditionalground raised regarding applicability ofsection 115JB without appreciating thatthe assessee has neither raised the issuebefore ne Assessing officer or before theAppellateCommissioner and|theassessee itself in it’s return of Incomehas admitted the applicability of section115JB of the Act?” 3. When the matter is taken up today, learned|counsel for the parties submitted that the proposed)substantial question of law No.1 has been alreadyanswered by a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment.cated19.01L.201LInI.T.A.No.778/2009,whereas,substantial question of law No.2 is answered by anotherDivision Bench of this Court vide judgment dated|16.01.2020 in ITA.No.18/2014. Accordingly, substantialquestion of law No.3 does not survive. J���9�D/4F�=6�<04�3:4;47/9E�2925C1/1��9=�18B1<29</25�G841</=91�=6�52F�2:/14�6=:�;=91/74:2</=9�/9�<0/1�233425����;;=:7/9E5C��<0/1�233425�/1�7/1>/1147�� ����������� ����������� 9DI�