Ita/236/2012 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax - Iii v. M/S Tektronix Engineering Development

IN THB HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 28[th]DAY OF APRIL 2014 PRESENT THER HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DILIP B BHOSALE AND THR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICBK B MANOHAR I.T.A.NO.236/2012 BRITWEBB 1.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IIL C.R.BUILDING ~ QUEENS ROADBANGALORE.|BANGALORE.| 2.DBPUTY COMMISSIONBR OF INCOME TAXCIRCLE 12(4)|BANGALORE. CIRCLE 12(4)|BANGALORE. _. APPBLLANTS| (BY SRI E I SANMATHI, ADV.,) AND: M/S. TEKTRONIX ENGINEERINGDEVELOPMENT (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,SAMRAH PLAZA,NO.4/2, ST.MARKS ROAD, BANGALORBE-560 OO1. — RBSPONDEBENT (BY SMT.VANI H. ADV.,). THIS ITA FILED UNDER SKC.260-A OF INCOMETAX|ACT|1961,ARISING|OUTORORDERDATED:01/03/2012.PASSEDIN|ITANO.655/BANG/2011, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR:2005-06 PRAYING TO FORMULATER THR SUBSTANTIALQUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN AND ALLOW.THR APPEAL AND SEI ASIDE THE ORDER DATED|01.03.2012 PASSED BY THE £ITAT TRIBUNAL, ‘B’BENCH, BANGALORE IN ITA NO.6595/BANG/2011, INTHR INTBREBST OF JUSTICE.THIS ITA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THISDAY,DilipB.Bhosale|J.,LDHLIVEREHTH EHOLLOWING: PC: We have heard learned counsel for the parties. By. consent, the appeal is heard for final disposal at thestage of admission. OoLearnedcounselappearingfor.therespondent, at the outset, invited our attention to thejudgment of this Court inTata Elxsi Ltd., [349 ITR 98 (Kar]]and submitted that the substantial questions oflaw raised in this appeal are squarely covered by thisjudgment and they deserve to be answered in favour ofthe assessee and against the revenue in terms thereof. 3. Having confronted with this, Mr.E.I.Sanmathi,learned counsel appearing for the appellants-revenuesubmitted that the revenue has filed Special LeavePetition IntheSupremeCourtagainsttheaforementioned judgment of this Court and the appealis pending. He, however, fairly states that this appealmay be disposed of in terms of that judgment withdirection to the Assessing Officer to pass consequentialorder only aiter SLP/Appeal is disposed of by thesupreme Court. In other words, he submitted that theAssessing Officer may be directed to pass consequentialorder 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 noobjection for making such observations and for disposalof this appeal. o. In the circumstances, we dispose of this appealin terms of the judgment of this Court in)Tata EIxsi Ltd.,answering all the substantial questions of law infavour of the assessee and against the revenue, withdirection to the Assessing Officer to pass consequentialorder under Section 260-1A of the Income Tax Act,1961, only in the light of the judgment of the SupremeCourt in the aforementioned SLP/Appeal that will bepassed in due course. No costs. od/-| JUDGE. Sd/-| JUDGE. Srl.