Ita/420/2013 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. M/S Infosys Technologies Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURUDATED THIS THE 16 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020. PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND| THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD LT.A. NO.420 OF 2013 BETWEEN: 1.THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE. 2 |THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXCIRCLE-11(4), RASHTROTHANA BHAVANCIRCLE-11(4), RASHTROTHANA BHAVAN NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.,) AND: M/S. INFOSYS TECHNOLOGIES LITD.,ELECTRONIC CITY.HOSUR ROAD, BANGALORE-560100. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. T. SURYANARAYANA, ADV.) THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T. ACT,196L ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 19.04.2013 PASSED IN ITA]NO.543/BANG/2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-039,PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO: (1) FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW.STATED THEREIN. (1) ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERPASSED BY THE ITAT, BANGALORE IN ITA NO.543/BANG/2012| DATED 19-04-2013 CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE|COMMISSIONER AND CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE|ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(4),|BANGALORE. THISITACOMINGONFOR.HEARING,|THISALOK ARADHE J.,DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: DAY, JUDGMENT This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax|Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short)Nave been preferred by the revenue. The subjectmatter I.T.A.No.420/2013 pertains to Assessment Year2008-09. The appeal was admitted by a bench of thiscourt vide order dated 14.03.2014 on the followingsubstantial questions of law: (I)Whether the appellate authorities were)correct in holding that the expenses|incurred towards visa charges and others|are not liable for fringe benefit tax as theSafneWaslegitimate.bDUSINeESexpenditure,whentheprovisionsofSection 115WB of tne Act contemplates|levyofSurchargeIn|respectofexpenditure incurred towards employees|during course of business and recordeda perverse finding? (iI)Whnetner the appellate autnorities werecorrect in reversing the finding of the|Assessing Officer by bringing to fringe|benefittaxtheexpenditureincurredtowards visa cnarges and otners as per|Section 115WB(2)(F) & 115WB(2)(q) of|the Act?correct in reversing the finding of the|Assessing Officer by bringing to fringe|benefittaxtheexpenditureincurredtowards visa cnarges and otners as per|Section 115WB(2)(F) & 115WB(2)(q) of|the Act? 2.|We nave neard learned counsel for theparties and have perused the record. For the reasonsassigned by us in the order passed today in ITANo.385/2012, tne substantial questions of law areanswered against the revenue and in favour of the|aSSeSSAE., In the result, we do not find any merit in this)appeal. The same fails and is hereby dismissed. SS| Sd/-JUDGE. Sd/-—JUDGE.