Ita/152/2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Acer India Pvt Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY 2072)PRESENT| THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND| THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARA]1LT.A. NO.152 OF 2019 BETWEEN: 1.THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX |4TH FLOOR, HMT BHAVAN |4TH FLOOR, HMT BHAVAN | NO.59, BELLARY ROADGANGANAGAR |BENGALURU-5600 32. D2 |THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAXCIRCLE-1(1), 4TH FLOORHMT BHAVAN, NO.59, BELLARY ROADGANGANAGAR, BENGALURU-560032.CIRCLE-1(1), 4TH FLOORHMT BHAVAN, NO.59, BELLARY ROADGANGANAGAR, BENGALURU-560032. (BY MR. K.V. ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) .... APPELLANTS AND" M/S. ACER INDIA PVT. LTD., |NO.13, 6TH FLOOR |EMBASSY HEIGHTS |MARGATH ROAD|NEXT TO HOSMAT HOSPITAL |BENGALURU-5600725PAN: BLRAO 1844D. (BY MR. SURYANARAYANA, SR. COUNSEL FOR|MS. MANASA ANANTHAN, ADVOCATE) .., RESPONDENT THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SEC. 260-A OF INCOME TAX|ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 14.09.2018 PASSED.IN ITA NO.2572/BANG/2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12, 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, BENGALURUIN ITA NO.2572/BANG/2017 DATED 14.09.2018 FOR ASSESSMENTYEAR JZOLL-12 ANNEXURE-C AND CONFIRMING THE ORDER OFTHE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY.THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), CIRCLE-1(1),.BENGALURU & ETC. THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR’ HEARING, THIS’ DAY, |ALOK ARADHE J.,DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: | JUDGMENT This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income TaxAct, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) has| been filed by the revenue. The subject matter of the appealpertains to the Assessment Year 2011-12. The appeal wasadmitted by a Bench of this Court on the _ followinsubstantial questions of law: J.Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case and in law, the|Tribunal is right in law in holding tnat theprovisions of Section 194H are not attracted inthe case of assessee witn regard to payments|towardsSUpDPIYof.MNldahhpOandflofdeduction of taxes on payments made to'distributors towards price protection and special price clearance discounts even when|the assessing authority rightly held that|assessee was liable to deduct tax on suUC)activities as it attracted Section 194H of the|Act ? 2D.Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case and in law, the|Tribunal is right in confirming the order of theCIT(A) canceling tne order passed under|Section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act by'erroneously holding that the said orders are|barred by limitation even though the period oflimitation applicable is 7 years and not 2 yearsas neld by the Tribunal? 5,Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case and in law, the|Tribunal is right in law tn confirming the orderof the CIT(A) canceling the order passed|under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act|by erroneously holding tnat said orders are|barred by limitation holding that as per law It prevailed prior to amenament to. Section201(3) by Finance Act No.2 of 2014 Is°considered 2 2D.For the reasons assigned by us in the judgment|passed today in I.T.A.No.150/2019, it is held that first|substantial question of law does not arise for consideration inthis appeal. The second and third substantial questions of laware answered in favour of the assessee and against therevenue. In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal,the same fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/-—JUDGE Sd/-—JUDGE