Ita/22/2014 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. M/S Aptuit Informatics India Pvt Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURUDATED THIS THE 25 DAY OF JUNE, 2020.PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND| THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA|INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.2Z27 OF 20 BETWEEN: 1.|THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX C.R.BUILDING, QUEENS ROALD,BENGALURU.BENGALURU. 2.|THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 11(1), — RASHTROTHANA BHAVAN, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,| BENGALURU. _.. APPELLANTS (BY SRI K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.) AND: M/S APTUIT INFORMATICS INDIA PVT. LID.,(NOW MERGED WITH LAURUS| LABS PVT. LTD.,) | PLOT NO. 100/101, | EXPORT PROMOTION INDUSTRIAL PARKWHITEFILED,BENGALURU - 560 O66. (BY SRI NAGESWAR RAO AND —SRI ARUN SRI KUMAR, ADVS.) THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER|SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISINGOUT OF ORDER DATED: 08.08.7013 PASSED IN ITANO.219/BANG/2013, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR2008-2009 PRAYING TO: FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS.OF LAW STATED ABOVE.OF LAW STATED ABOVE. ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SETI ASIDE THEORDER PASSED BY THE ITAT, BENGALURU IN|ITA NO.219/BANG/2013 DATED 08.08.2013)AND|CONFIRMTHEORDER.OF|THE|APPELLATECOMMISSIONER.CONFIRMINGTHE ORDER PASSED BY THE [INCOME TAXOFFICER, WARD - 11(1), BENGALURU.ORDER PASSED BY THE ITAT, BENGALURU IN|ITA NO.219/BANG/2013 DATED 08.08.2013)AND|CONFIRMTHEORDER.OF|THE|APPELLATECOMMISSIONER.CONFIRMINGTHE ORDER PASSED BY THE [INCOME TAXOFFICER, WARD - 11(1), BENGALURU. THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL COMING ON FOR!HEARING, THIS DAY,ALOK ARADHE J,MADE THEFOLLOWING:JUDGMENT Sri K.V.Aravind, learned counsel for appellants ——Revenue.| SrlNagesnwar.Rao,learnedcounsel forrespondent —- assessee through video conference. This appeal is filed under Section 260A of theIncome Tax Act, 1961, by the Revenue, beingaggrieved by the order dated 08.08.2013 passed bythe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru, inITA.No.219/Bang/2013. 2).The appeal was admitted vide order dated| 04.07.2014, for considering the following substantialquestions of law:| “7Whether the Tribunal on the facts andin the circumstances of the case and in Lawwas correct in holding that the assessee isentitled to the benefit of deduction u/s 10Aeven though there is no continuation ofbusiness by the assessee as the STPI unitwas taken over by way of acquiring theSTPI license from Its sister concern and not by way of amalgamation or merger as persection 10A (7A)? ?_|Whether the Tribunal on the facts andin the circumstances of the case and in Lawwas correct in holding that the assesseecompany has not violated the conditionsStated in Section 10A(2)(1i) and 10A(7A)and it was only an organizational changewithout a change in the place, form orbusiness of the unit?” 3. Similar substantial questions of law were.framed in I.T.A.No.293/2012, wherein, this Court byorder passed today, has answered the aforementionedsubstantial questions of law in favour of the assesseeand against the Revenue, in view of the judgmentsdated 14.11.2018 passed by a Division Bench of this.Court in I.T.A.No.4/2011 and I.T.A.No.368/2010. | 4. For the reasons assigned in the aforesaidjudgments, the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the assessee and against theRevenue. However, it is clarified that the benefit ofdeduction under Section 10A of the Income Tax Act,1961, shall enure to the assessee for the unexpiredperiod. 5. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of. — Sd/-JUDGE| Sd/-JUDGE|