Ita/280/2013 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iii v. M/S Teleradiology Solutions

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.280/2013 BRITWEBB 1.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IIL CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDINGS, QUEENS ROAD BANGALORBE-560 OO1. 2.THR DEPUTY COMMISSIONBROF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 12(4)OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 12(4) BANGALORE. _. APPBLLANTS| (BY SRI E I SANMATHI, ADV.,) AND: M/S.TELERADIOLOGY SOLUTIONS,NO.7G1, VISHVESHWARAIAH INDUSTRIALAREA, TPL ROAD, OPP.GRAPHITE INDIA,BANGALORE-48. .. RESPONDENT (BY SRI.LSHARATH, ADV. FOR SRI.CHAITHANYA K.K..ADV.) THIS ITA FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOMETAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED)16/01/2013 PASSED IN ITA NO.378/BANG/2012, FOR:TH EASSHSSMBENTYRAR2006-07PRAYINGTOFORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW.STATED THERBIN AND SEI ASIDE THR COMMON|APPELLATE ORDERDATED|16.01.2013|TN|ITANO.378/BANG/2012 PASSED BY THE ITAT ‘C’ BENCH,BANGALORE. | THIS ITA COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS|DAY,DilipB.Bhosale|J.,LDHLIVEREHTH EHOLLOWING: PC: We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 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 LeavePetition1nNthe.pupremeCourtagainsttheaforementioned 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 EIxsiLtd.,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. Nocosts. sd/- JUDGE. sd/- JUDGE. Srl.