Ita/177/2012 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. M/S Robert Bosch Engineering

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE. DATED THIS THE 29[th]DAY OF APRIL 2014. PRESENT THE HON‘'BLE MR. JUSTICE DILIP B BHOSALE AND| THE HON‘'BLE MR. JUSTICE B MANOHAR ITA.NO.177/2012 BETWEEN 1.THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAXLTU, JSS TOWERS, BSK II STAGE.LTU, JSS TOWERS, BSK II STAGE. BANGALORE| 2.THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX LTU, JSS TOWERS, BSK III STAGE| BANGALORE... APPELLANTS (BY SRI K V ARAVIND, ADV.,)| AND M/S ROBERT BOSCH ENGINEERING &BUSINESS SOLUTIONS LID. NOQ.123, INDUSTRIAL LAYOUTKORAMANGALA, HOSUR ROADBANGALORE -560095 ... RESPONDENT | (BY SRI T SURYANARAYANA, ADV., FOR KING & PARTRIDGE) THIS ITA FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF I.T. ACT, 1961, ARISINGOUTOFORDER|DATED16/02/2012|PASSEDINITANO.588/BANG/2011,|FOR|THE.ASSESSMENT.YEAR2007-2003,PRAYING TO: I. FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW.STATED THEREIN, IJ. ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE. ORDERSPASSEDBY|THE.ITAT,.BANGALOREINTTA!NO.588/BANG/2011 DATED 16/02/2012 CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF.THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER AND CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED|BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU, BANGALORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS ITA COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS ~~ DAY, |Dilip B. Bnosale J.,DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING PC: We have heard learned counsel for the parties. — 2).Learned counsel appearing for the respondent,at the outset, invited our attention to the judgment of this) Court In|Tata Elfxsi Ltd., [349 ITR 98 (Kar)andsubmitted that the substantial question of law raised inthis appeal are squarely covered by this judgment and it)deserves to be answered in favour of the assessee and§against the revenue in terms thereof. — 3. Having confronted with this, Mr.K.V.Aravind, learned counsel appearing for the appellants-revenue submitted that the revenue has filed Special Leave PetitionIn.theSupremeCourtagainsttneaforementioned judgment of this Court and the appeal is pending. He,nowever, fairly states that this appeal may be disposed of|in terms of that judgment with direction to the Assessing.Officer to pass consequential order only after SLP/Appeal is|disposed of by the Supreme Court. In other words, hesubmitted that the Assessing Officer may be directed to.pass consequential order in the light of the order of the)Supreme Court that will be passed in the abovementioned|SLP/Appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent, has no|objection for making such observations and for disposal ofthis appeal. 5. In the circumstances, we dispose of this appeal interms of the judgment of this Court in.Tata Elxsi Ltd.,answering the substantial question of law in favour of theassessee and against the revenue, with direction to the)Assessing Officer to pass consequential order under Section 260-1A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, only in thelignt of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the}aforementioned SLP/Appeal that will be passed in duecourse. No costs. Sd/-JUDGE| Sd/-JUDGE. TL|