Ita/146/2014 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Karantaka State Seeds

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BBNGALURU DATHKD THIS THE 1 DAY OF MARCH 2015| PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEET SARAN AND THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA| ITA NO 146 OF 2014 BEIWERE 1.THER COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX C R BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE. 2.THR DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(5) RASHTROTHANA BHAVAN| NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. KK V ARAVIND, ADV.) AND M/S KARNATAKA STATE SEEDSCORPORATIONBEB] BHAVAN, BELLARY ROADHEBBAL, BANGALORE. RESPONDENT THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961,ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED: 08/10/2013 PASSED IN ITA)NO.194/BANG/2013, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-2010.THISITACOMING.ONFORADMISSIONTHISDAY, |VINFFT SARANJ.DELIVERED THER FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue against theotder of the Tribunal whereby, in the case of the respondent (forthe assessment year 2009-10) the actual expenditure incurred by therespondent to the tune of Rs.35.89 lakhs has been allowed by the|Tribunal.2.The brief facts of the case are that the respondent-assessee 1S a public sector undertaking wholly owned by theGovernment of Karnataka. For the assessment year 2009-10, 1t|had claimed deduction of Rs.53,84,956/- under Section 35 of the)Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’), which relates to)expenditure on Scientific research. The said expenditure wasdisallowed by the Assessing Officer. In appeal, the Commissionerallowed the deduction of Rs.35.89 lakhs as against Rs.53,84,956/-claimed by the assessee. After arriving at a finding that though therelevant certificate was not available yet on facts 1t was found by|the Commissioner that the assessee had incurred the aforesaid|expenses. Challenging the said order the revenue filed an appealbefore the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by the impugned order, has categorically held that though the respondent-assessee would notbe entitled for deduction under Section 35 of the Act but since|there was no dispute about the actual expenditure incurred by the|assessee, which the Tribunal had found to be business expenditure|and not capital expenditure, the expenditure allowed by theCommissioner to the tune of Rs.35.89 lakhs was maintained by theTribunal. 3.In view of the fact that the categorical finding of fact|has been recorded by the Tribunal that the said amount was|actually incurred by the assessee towards business expenditure andallowed the same, we ate of the view that the same would becovered under Section 35 of the Act. AIn our view, no interference is called for with theorder of the Tribunal. As no substantial question of law arises for|determination of this Court. The appeal is accordinglydismissed. Sd/-|JUDGE Sd/-| JUDGE|