Ita/406/2014 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. Informatics (India) Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU| DATED THIS THE 3 DAY OF MARCH, 2015 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEET SARAN AND, THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA I.TA.NO.406/2014 BETWEEN: 1.)The Commissioner of Income- [4x C.R.Building, Queens Road, Bangalore. 2 |The Deputy Commissioner of| Income Tax, Circle-11 (4), Rashtrothana Bhavan, Nrupathunega Road, Bangalore. | APPELLANT (BY Sri K.V.Aravind, Adv.,) AND:M/s. Informatics (India) Ltd.,No.194, R.V.Road,Basavaneudi,Bangalore-560 004. RESPONDENT THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF LT. ACT,1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 16.4.2014 PASSED IN ITANO.1504/BANG/2013, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. THIS ITA COMING ON FOR ADMISSSION THIS DAY,VINEFT SARANJ.DELIVERED THR FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT The brief facts are that the assessee had filed his return|claiming exemption under Section 10B of the Income Tax Act,1961 (for brevity ‘Act’) which was denied to the assessee by theassessing officer as well as the appellate authority. The Tribunal,by its judgment and order dated 16.04.2014 has held that in theinterest of justice, the claim of the assessee, should be examinedafresh by the assessing officer under Section 10A of the Act in thelicht of the observations made by the Tribunal in its order. TheAssessing Officer has thus been directed to decide the issue afreshafter affording the assessee an opportunity of being heard. 2This appeal has been filed with a prayer to decide the following substantial question of law: “WhetherOfnthe|factsandin.the|circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct)in directing the assessing authority to examinewhether the assessee is eligible for deduction undersection 10A even though it had originally made a claim of deduction under Section 10B, which 1s)contrary to the provisions of Section 380A(5) of theLT. Act, 1961 and also contrary to the decision ofthe High Court in the case of BAEHL Software Ltd.In ITA No.136/2010 dated 1/3/2011’? | CuWe have heard Mr.K.V.Aravind, learned counsel for|the appellant and perused the record. AMr. Aravind, learned counsel for the appellant, hassubmitted that in view of the Division Bench decision of thisCourt in ITA No.136/2010 in the case of|The Commissioner of Income Tax & another -vs- M/s.BAEHAL Software Limited,the order made by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside and thequestion be answered in favour of the revenue. | 5The assessment year in question in the aforesaid casewas 2004-05. The assessment year in question 1n the present case is 2009-10. A proviso was added in Section 10A by the FinanceAct, 2005 w.e.f. 01.04.2006. In view of the insertion of theproviso the law laid down in the case of|BAEHAL Software Limited,would not applicable to the facts of the present case,| which relates to assessment year 2009-10. As such, we do notfind that the said substantial question of law requiresdetermination by this Court.The appeal is dismissed. SD/-|JUDGE |SD/-|JUDGE.TIL