Ita/345/2015 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. Hewlett Packard India Sales Pvt.ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURUDATED THIS THE 30 DAY OF NOVEMBER 2070. PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND| THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASADLT.A. NOC.345 OF 2015 BETWEEN: 1.|THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX LTU JSS TOWERS| BSK III STAGE BANGALORE - 560 O85. 2 |THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX LTU JSS TOWERS| 100 FT RING ROAD BANASHANKARI III STAGE BANGALORE - 560 O85. .., APPELLANTS. (BY SRI.K.V.ARAVIND, ADV.,) AND" M/S HEWLETT PACKARD INDIA SALES PVT. LTD.NO.24, SALARPURIA ARENAHOSUR MAIN ROAD|ADUGODI.BANGALORE - 560 030. (BY SRI.PERCY PARDIWALLA SR. ADV. SRI.T.SURYANARAYANA, ADV.) .., RESPONDENT THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T. ACT,1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 27.01.2015 PASSED IN ITA.NO.1059/BANG/2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09,PRAYING TO: (1) FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW.STATED ABOVE. (II) ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER.PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALOREIN ITA NO.1059/BANG/2013 DATED 22.01.2015 CONFIRMING THE.ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER AND CONFIRM THE.ORDER PASSED BY THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,LTU, BANGALORE. THIS ITA COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,ALOKARADAHE J.DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: | JUDGMENT This appeal under Section 260A of the Income TaxAct, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short)has been preferred by the revenue. The subject matter|of the appeal pertains to the Assessment year 2008-09. The appeal was admitted by a bench of this Court vide order dated 18.03.2016 on the following substantial|questions of law:| (i) Whether the tribunal was correct in|deleting the addition made on account of.depreciation on intangible assets without.appreciating that the assessee had failed to|laentify the assets on which depreciation nasbeen claimed? (ii) Whether the tribunal was correct in|deleting the addition made on account ofdeprecation on intangible assets whicn was_part of the purchase consideration paid foracquisition of a unit when the same is notallowable under the provisions of the Act? 2 |For the reasons assigned in the judgmentpassedby US>today|InI.T.A.No.250/2011,thesubstantial questions of law framed by a bench of this.court is answered against the revenue and in favour of.the assessee. In the result, we do not find any merit in.this appeal, the same fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/-JUDGE. SS| Sd/-.JUDGE.