Ita/246/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Polyflex (India) Pvt Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 1 DAY OF DECEMBER 2014. PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.MANOHARL.T.A. No.246/2009 BETWEEN: 1. The Commissioner of Income-Tax,C.R.Building, Queens Road,Bangalore. 2. The Dy.Commissioner of Income-Tax,Central Circle-2(1), C.R.Building, Queens Road, Bangalore. APPELLANTS (By Sri.K.V.Aravind, Adv.) AND" M/s.Polyflex (India) Pvt. Ltd.,No.116, Bommasandra Industrial Area,Anekal Taluk, Bangalore.RESPONDENT (By Sri.Praveen Kumar Hiremath, Adv. for M/s.K.R.Prasad, Adv.) 7K OK This ITA is filed under section 260-A of I.T.Act, 1961,|arising out of order dated 12.12.2008 passed in ITA.No.397/| Bang/2008, for the Assessment Year 2004-2005, praying toformulate the substantial questions of law stated therein andaliow the appeal and set aside the order passed by tne ITAT,Bangalore, in ITA No.397/Bang/2008 dt.12.12.2008 confirmingthe order of the Appellate Commissioner and confirm the orderpassed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CentralCircle-2(1), Bangalore. This ITA coming on for Hearing this day,|N.KUMAR, J.,delivered the following: JUDGMENT The appeal is preferred by the assessee challenging theorder passed by the Tribunal. 2).The assessee has raised the following substantialquestions of law for consideration in this appeal: 1)Whether the Appellate Authorities were correct in nolding tnat the assessee’s claim fordeduction under Section 80 IB of the Act is not hit bythe exception provided in Section 80 IB(2)(lii) readwith Scnedule 11 (Item 25) to the Income Tax Act aspolyutnerim foam used by the assessee in the manufactureOf|automobileseatsresultsincommercially different product tnan that mentioned inthe 1][th]Scnedu/le2 2) Whetner the assessee is entitied to claim)deduction under Section 80 IB of the Act in respect of aproduct manufactured by it which is listed in the 11[th]Schedule to the [ncome Tax Act?| cmInfact, similar questions arose for considerationbefore tnis Court in tne case of the assessee itself for the earlier|period and tnis Court py its order dated 25.2.2014 in|ITA.No0.623/2007 has answered the said substantial questions otlaw in favour of the revenue and against the assessee.—Accordingly, in this appeal also, the substantial questions of law|are answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. 4 iHowever, it is submitted that the assessee haspreferred an appeal against the said judgment of this Court|before the Hon’ble Apex Court and it is pending consideration.In the event of the assessee succeeding in the appeal before the| Hon ble Apex Court, then the Assessing Autnority snail passconsequential order in terms of Section 260(1A) of the IncomeTax Act, 1961. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of. | BSS. Sd/-. JUDGE. Sd/-. JUDGE