Ita/304/2016 Of Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-7 v. M/S V Moksha

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.SRBEENIVASE GOWDAITA NO.304 OF 2016 BETWEEN 1.|PR.COMMISSIONER OF [INCOME TAX-7 BMTC COMPLEX, KORAMANGALA BANGALORE.» «|DY.COMMISSIONBR OF INCOME TAX OFFICKR> CIRCLE 12(3), BANGALORE. ... APPKBELLANTS (BY SRI.E.LSANMATHI, ADV.) AND M/s. V.MOKSHA THRHCHNOLOGIES PVT.LTNO.2799 7 2800, SRINIDHI|SECTOR-1, 27[‘T]MAINHSR LAYOU IBANGALORE — 560 102.PAN: .. RESPONDENT THIS [TA IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX.ACT 1961, PRAYING TO DECIDE THE QUESTION OF LAW.AND/OR SUCH OTHER QUESTIONS OF LAW AS MAY BE.RFORMULATBED BY THERE HON’BLBE COURT AND SBT ASIDEAPPELLATE ORDER DATED 30.09.2015 PASSED BY THE ITAT,|‘B BENCH, BENGALURU, IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS IN ITANO.1053/BANG/2013 FOR A.Y.2004-0O5. THIS ITA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JAYANT PATEL J.DBELIVERED THERE FOLLOWING JUDGMENT The appellants-Revenue have preferred this presentappeal 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 pertaining to non-10A unitagainst profit of LOA unit even when the same is notpermitted under the provisions of the Act?” iaWehave.heardMr.E.I.Sanmathi,learnedcounsel appearing for the appellants-Revenue. 3.Learned counsel for the appellants-Revenuefairly concedes that the question of law is covered by thejudgment of this Court in the case of|Commissioner ofIncome 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 any substantial question of law would arise for consideration. Hence, the present appeal isdismissed. Sd/-JUDGESd/-|JUDGE.TL|