Ita/185/2015 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. M/S. Quest Global Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 27027 PRESENT| THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND| THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASW AMYILT.A. NO.185 OF 2015 BETWEEN: 1.|THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE. 2.|THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX. CIRCLE-12(2), RASHTROTHANA BHAVAN NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE-56000 1. _... APPELLANTS (BY MR. K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.,) AND" M/S. QUEST GLOBAL ENGINEERINGSERVICES PVT. LITD.,SECOND FLOOR, PRIMOSE 7B|EMBASSEY TECH VILLAGESARJIAPURA-MARATHAHALLI OUTER RING ROADDEVARABEESANA HALLIVARTHUR HOBLI, BANGALORE-560103. ~. RESPONDENT (BY MR. CHYTHANYA K.K. ADV.,) THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SEC. J6O0-A OF INCOME TAXACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 12.12.2014 PASSEDIN ITA NO.600/BANG/2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09,PRAYING TQ: | (1) FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW,STATED ABOVE. (ii) ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER.PASSED BY THE ITAT, BANGALORE IN ITA NO.600/BANG/2013—DATED 12.12.201L4 AND CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATECOMMISSIONER CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE.DEPUTY.COMMISSIONEROF.INCOME|TAX,|CIRCLE-12(2),BANGALORE. THIS ILT.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 2008-09. The appeal wasadmitted by a Bench of this Court vide order dated|19.02.2016 on the following substantial questions of law: "1. Whether the Tribunal was correctin deleting the disallowances made by the AO|on provision of loss on derivative contracts|witnout appreciating tnat tne provision for losscannot be allowed wnen the actual sales had|not even taken place and maturity date of tnederivates contracts nas not arisen? 2. Whether the Tribunal was correct|in deleting tne disallowances of provision of|loss on aerivative contracts made by the AO|without appreciating that the assessing officer relied on the pboaras instruction No.3/2010|and held that the provision claimed in-speculative transaction in nature and nence|not allowable? 2. For tne reasons assigned by us in the judgmentpassed today in I.T.A.No.133/2013, the substantial questionsof law are answered against the revenue and in favour of theassessee. In the result, we don to find any merit in thisappeal, the same fails and is nereby dismissed. Sd/-JUDGE Sd/-—JUDGE RV/SS_