Ita/263/2016 Of Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-7 v. M/S Unisys India Private Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURUDATED THIS THE 28 DAY OF JUNE, 2016. PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.SREENIVASE GOWDA ITA NO.263/2016 BETWEEN 1.|PR. COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX-/INCOME TAX-/ BMTC COMPLEX, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE -560 OO1. «|THER DEBEPUTY COMMISSIONOF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE 12(5)BANGALORE. ... APPELLANTS| (BY SRI E.IT.SANMATHI , ADV.) AND M/S.UNISYS INDIA PRIVATE LTD.PURVA PREMIER, 135/1,.RESIDENCY ROAD,|BANGALORE-560 025,PAN: AAACU 1502 G. — RESPONDENT THIS [TA IS FILED UNDER SEHKC.260-A OF INCOME TAACT 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER|DATED30.09.2015PASSED BY|THEITAT,“A?BENCH,BENGALURU,IN|APPEAL.PROCBBDINGSNO.IT(TP)A|NO.70/BANG/2015 FOR A.Y.2009-10. | THIS ITA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JAYANT PATEL J.DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT The appellants-Revenue have preferred this present|appeal by raising the following substantial questions of law: (i)WhetherOnlthefactsandin|the circumstances of the case, the Tribunalwas right in setting aside the disallowance|of expenditure incurred in connection withtelecommunication, legal and professionalfees, band width/internet charges andtraveling expenses of Rs.1,27,648/- while)computing deductions under Section 10-A.by relying upon the decision of this Hon'ble|Court in the case of CIT —vs- M/s.Tata Elxs1|when the said matter has not reached|finality P (iWhetherOnlthe factsandin|thecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal|was right directing the assessing authorityto compute deduction under Section 10-A|without setting off of losses pertaining toone unit against the profit of another by|relying on the decision of this Hon’ble Courtin the case of CIT v/s. M/s. Yokogowa India Ltd., without appreciating the fact that as|per the amended provision of Section 10-A|deduction under Section J]O-A has to beallowed from the total income of the|assessee and as per Section 2(45) of the ITAct, the total income of the assessee should|be computed from various sources after setoff of losses from one source againstincome from other sources under the same|head of income inters of Section 71?” iaWe.haveheardMr.E.I.Sanmathi,learned counsel appearing for the appellants-Revenue. 3.Learned counsel for the appellants-Revenuefairly concedes that the first substantial question of law is covered by the judgment of this Court in the case ofCommissioner of Income Tax & Another -vs- Tata ElxstLtd. & Ors.reported in (2012) 349 ITR 98 (Karn)similarly, the second substantial question of law is also|covered by the decision of this Court in the case of|Commissioner of Income Tax & Another -vs- YokogawaIndia Ltd. & Ors. reported in (2012) 341 ITR 385 (Karn). 4In our view, when both the questions are alreadycovered by the decision of this Court, we do not find anysubstantial question of law would arise for consideration.Hence, the present appeal isdismissed.| TL| Sd/-JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE