Ita/3/2017 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Karnataka Industrial Area

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURUDATED THIS THE 16 DAY OF OCTOBER 27072 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND| THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD IT.ANO.3 OF 2017 BETWEEN 1.|COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX.,.BENGALURU.BENGALURU. 2 |THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF|INCOME TAX(E),CIRCLE 17(1)INCOME TAX(E),CIRCLE 17(1) BENGALURU. _., APPELLANTS (BY SRI.E.I.LSANMATHI, ADV.) AND M/S KARNATAKA INDUSTRIALAREA DEVELOPMENT BOARDNO.14/3, 2 FLOORR.P.BUILDING, NRUPATHUNGA ROADBENGALURU-560 OO1. RESPONDENT| (BY SRI.CHYTHANYA K.K., ADV. FOR C/R) THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260(A) OF.INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER | DATED:20.04.7016PASSEDIN|TTA.NO.822/BANG/2014, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR2010-11. PRAYING THIS HON’BLE COURT TODECIDE THE FOREGOING QUESTION OF LAW AND/ORSUCH OTHER QUESTIONS OF LAW AS MAY BEFORMULATED BY THE HON’BLE COURT AS DEEMEDFITAND|SET|ASIDETHEAPPELLATEORDERDATED:20.04.2016 PASSED BY THE ITAT,B’ BENCH,BENGALURU,INAPPEALPROCEEDINGSNO.ITA|NO.822/BANG/2014 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11AS SOUGHT FOR IN THIS APPEL AND TO GRANT SUCHOTHER RELIEF AS DEEMED FIT, IN THE INTEREST OFJUSTICE. THIS ITA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THISDAY,ALQKARADRHEJ"7DELIVEREDTHE|FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Mr.E.]l.Sanmatni,iearnec|counsel|fortneRevenue.| Mr.K.K.Chythanya,learned|counsel|for.theaSSeSSAE., 2 |This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 Nas been filed by the Revenue.The subject matter pertains to the Assessment year 2010-11. The appeal was admitted by a Bench of this.CourtVideorder|dated98.7017.ON)followingsubstantial questions of law: (1)Whether on the facts and In thecircumstances of the case, tat the Tribunalwas right in holding that the assessee isentitled for exemption under section 12A ofthe Act by following the Judgment of thisHon'ble High Court which has not reachedfinality even though the activities carriedout by the assessee comes under amendedprovisions of section 2(15) of the Act? (2)Whether on the facts and In thecircumstances of the case, that the Tribunalwas right in deleting the addition of Rs.1.74crores on account of /umpsum_ leasingcharges received by assessee eventhoughtheAuditor|haspointedOUTUunderStatement of [Income to the tune of Rs.5.81crores by the assessee and, as such, claimof Rs.1.74 crores is not substantiated byasessee with any materials?| (3)Whether on the facts and In thecircumstances of the case, that the Tribunalwas right in setting aside disallowance ofdepreciation by following.Itsearlier|judgment of this Hon’ble High Court in thecase of DCIT v/s. Jyothy Charitable Trusteven when the assessing authority hasrightly disallowed the claim of depreciationdSItwouldtantamount|CO doublededuction? 3.At the outset, when the matter was takenup today, the learned counsel for the assessee pointedout that the substantial questions of law (1) and (2).do not arise tn the factual situation of the casewhereas substantial question of law (3) involved in.this appeal has already been answered by the Benchof this Court In the case otfCommissioner ofIncome|Tax.=_\VRajasthanandGujaratiCharitableFoundation[402 The aforesaid legal position could not be disputed by thelearned counsel for the Revenue. 4We have considered the submissions made on both sides. In view of the law laid down by this. CourtInRajasthanandGujaratiCharitable| Foundation|(supra) and for the reasons assigned| therein, the substantial question of law (3) isanswered against the Revenue and in favour of theaSSeSSACeC, 5.|In the result, the appeal is.disposed of with liberty to the appellant to argue the substantial questions of law (1) and (2) in ITA No.2/201/7. DM/- Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE