Ita/265/2016 Of Pr Commissioner Of Income Tax-4 v. M/S Makino India Pvt. 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 GOWDAITA NO.2Z265 OF 20 BETWEEN 1.|PR.COMMISSIONBR OF INCOME TAX-4. BMTC COMPLEX, KORAMANGALA BANGALORE. «|DY.COMMISSIONER OF [INCOME TAX OFPFICK CIRCLE 12(1), BANGALORE. _.. APPBLLANTS| (BY SRI.E.LSANMATHI, ADV.) . AND M/S. MAKINO INDIA PVT.LTDNO.11, EPIP, K.R.PURAMBANGALORE — 560 O66. PAN : . RESPONDENT THIS [TA IS FILED UNDER SEHKC.260-A OF INCOME TAACT 1961, PRAYING TO DECIDE THE QUESTION OF LAW.AND/OR SUCH OTHER QUESTIONS OF LAW AS MAY BE.RFORMULATBED BY THERE HON’BLE COURT AND SBT ASIDE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 4.11.2015 PASSED BY THE ITAT, ‘A’| BENCH, BENGALURU, IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS IN ITANO.936/BANG/2014 FOR A.Y.2004-05. 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 question of law: “WhetherOT)thefacts andinthecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal was.justified in law in directing the Assessing Officerallow the set off losses (depreciation/business)|pertaining to non-10A unit against profit of 1OA uniteven when the same is not permitted under theprovisions of the ActP” iaWe.haveheardMr.E.I.Sanmathi,learned counsel appearing for the appellants-Revenue. 3.Learned counsel tor the appellants-Revenuefairly concedes that the question of law is covered by thejudgment of this Court in the case of|Commissioner of Income Tax & Another -vs- Yokogawa India Ltd. & Ors.reported in (2012) 341 ITR 385 (Karn). | 4In our view, when the question is already.covered 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/-JUDGESd/-|JUDGE JUDGE