Ita/185/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.igate Global Solutions Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU|ON THE 14 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2018 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH| AND| THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.185 OF 2010 BEI|WEEN: 1THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TA®™ C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD,BANGALORE.BANGALORE. 2 |THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONEROF INCOME-TAX,CIRCLE - 11(4),C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD,BANGALORE. ... APPELLANTS | (BY SRI K.V. ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) AND: M/S. iGATE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD.NO.158-162(P) & 165(P)-170(P),EPIP, PHASE II, WHITEFILED,BANGALORE. ~., RESPONDENT (BY SRI T. SURYANARAYANA, ADVOCATE) THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL [IS FILED UNDERSECTION 260-A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961,|PRAYING|TO.FORMULATETHE.SUBSTANTIALQUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN AND ALLOW|THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY.THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE,IN I.7T.A. NO.624/BANG/2009, DATED 18-12-2009,CONFIRMINGTHE|ORDER|OF|THE.APPELLATECOMMISSIONER AND CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED.BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,|CIRCLE-11(4), BANGALORE. THIS INCOME TAK APPEAL COMING ON FORHEARING THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH, J., DELIVERED|THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Learned counsel for the appellants submits that itwould not be necessary to go into the merits since the|substantial questions of law could be answered on a/Short issue. 2. So far as the first question of law isconcerned, he submits that it is covered by the orderof |the Tribunal in tne assessee’s own case in I1.T.A.Nos.248 and 249/Bang/200/7 dated 27-11-2007. In view of the same, the first substantial question of law|would not arise for consideration. 3So far as the second question of law is|concerned, in paragraph No.4.4, the Tribunal in its|order held that the issue is covered by the decision of the Tribunal in tne assessee’s own case in I1.T.ANo.2291/2004 dated 11-8-2006 and I.T.A Nos.391 and392 of 2007 dated 30-10-2007. #=The appellants’counsel submits that the reliance placed therein is|incorrect since the issue involved is quite different thantne issue involved in the present case. 4. The said fact is not disputed by the learnedcounsel for the respondent. 5. Under the circumstances, it is just and properto direct the Tribunal to re-consider the issue so far as|second issue is concerned. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. Tneorder of the Tribunal is partly set aside, in so far as thesecond issue is concerned, the Tribunal to consider the|issue afresn. All contentions on the issue are Kept|open. SD/-JUDGE | SD/-JUDGE KVK