Ita/371/2012 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax -Iii v. M/S Quality Engineering & Software Technologies

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.371/2012 BRITWEBB 1.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IILC.R. BUILDINGS,QUEENS ROADBANGALORE.|C.R. BUILDINGS,QUEENS ROADBANGALORE.| 2.THR DEPUTY COMMISSIONBROF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 12(2)OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 12(2) BANGALORE. _. APPBLLANTS| (BY SRI E I SANMATHI, ADV.,) AND: M/S.QUALITY ENGINEERING & SOFTWARETECHNOLOGIES PVT.LTD.,NO.55, QUEST TOWERS,WHITEFIELD MAIN ROAD,MAHADEVAPURA, BANGALORE-560 048. — RBSPONDEBENT (BY SMT.VANI H., ADV.) THIS ITA FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOMETAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED)04/06/2012 PASSED IN ITA NO.465/BANG/2011, FOR:TH EASSHSSMBENTYRAR2006-07PRAYINGTOFORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW.STATED THEREIN AND MODIFY THR APPELALIE|ORDEBR DATED 04.06.2012 PASSED BY THR ITAT ‘A’BENCH, BANGALORE IN ITA NO.469/BANG/2011-DATED04.06.2012AS|SOUGHTRORTN|THERESONDEBENT-ASSESSEB’CASE,IN|APPHALPROCEEDINGS IN ITA NO.465/BANG/2011, IN THEINTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS ITA COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS|DAY,DilipBb.Bhosale.J.,DELIVEREDTHEROLLOWING: PC: We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 2 |Learnedcounsel appearingfOrthe|respondent, at the outset, invited our attention to the judgment 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 this judgment 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 LeavePetition1n the.SupremeCourtagainstthe.aforementioned 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 EILXxsLtd.,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. No costs. od/-| JUDGE. sd/- JUDGE. Srl.