Ita/421/2015 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Abbey Business Services

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURUDATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JULY 20271 PRESENT| THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND| THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR. LT.A. NO.421 OF 2ZO15 BETWEEN: 1.THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TA®C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD|BANGALORE. 2.|THE DY, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX|CIRCLE-1(2)RASHTROTHANA BHAVANNRUPATHUNGA ROADBANGALORE-560001. | .., APPELLANTS (BY SRI. K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.,) AND" M/S. ABBEY BUSINESS SERVICES(INDIA) PVT., LTD.,THE RESIDENCY, 7TH FLOOR|133/1, RESIDENCY ROAD.BANGALORE 560075PAN:AAFCA OO37R. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. HIMANSU SHEKAR SINHA, ADV.,) THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T. ACT,1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 18.07.2012 PASSED IN ITA.NO.41/BANG/2010,|FORTHEASSESSMENTYEAR|2006-07,PRAYING TQ: I. FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW)STATED ABOVE. II]. ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSEDBY|THELIA,BANGALOREIN|LIANO.41/BANG/2011DATED:18.0/7.270172 AND CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE APPELLACOMMISSIONER CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE.DEPUTYCOMMISSIONEROF.INCOME-TAX,CIRCLE-11(1),BANGALORE. THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,|ALOK ARADHE J.,DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: | JUDGMENT Mr.K.V.Aravind, learned counsel for the revenue. Mr.Himanshu Shekar Sinha, learned counsel for therespondent.| 2. This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) has|been filed by the revenue. The subject matter of the appealpertains to the Assessment Year 2006-07. The appeal wasadmitted by a Bench of this Court on the _ followinsubstantial questions of law: Whether the Tribunal was correct /[nnoiding that the disallowance made u/s.40(a)(1) for non-deduction of tax on payment made toabbey National Plic., UK., in not liable to TDSu/s.195 of the Act and consequently the saidpaymentsare|notlaipilefordisallowanceu/sS.40(a)(1) of the Act? D)Whether the Tribunal was correct /nallowing relief to the assessee Nnolding tnat thereimbursementOf|salaryCOSISandotherexpenaiture was without any profit element andnence cannot be regarded as income cnargeabiein the hands of Abbey National Pic., UK underArticle 13 of the India-UK Treaty, without properlyappreciating the nature and content of thetransactions with reference to the provisions ofsection 195 and section 40(a)(i) of the Act?" 2. When the matter was taken up today, learnedcounsel for the assessee submitted that the aforesaidsubstantial questions of law have already been answered infavour of the assessee by judgment dated 01.12.2020|passed in ITA Nos.214/2014 and 215/2014. It is also urgedthat the appeal filed by the revenue is barred by limitationand no application for condonation of delay has been filed.Therefore, the appeal itself cannot be entertained. In|support of aforesaid submission, reliance has been placed on the decision of Full Bench of Delhi High Court in|"COMMISSIONEROF|INCOMETAXYs.ODEONBUILDERS P, LTD.' 393 ITR 27. 3. Learned counsel for the revenue was unable to pointout as to why the judgment in ITA Nos.214/2014 and|215/2014 does not apply to the facts of this case. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties atlength and we find that the aforesaid questions of law havealready been answered in favour of the assessee byjudgment dated 01.12.2020 passed in ITA Nos.214/2014 and2115/2014. 5. For the reasons assigned in the aforesaid judgment, the substantial questions of law are answered against therevenue and in favour of the assessee. 6. The question whether or not the appeal is barred bylimitation, is Kept open and the parties are granted liberty to.adjudicate the same in an appropriate proceeding. ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� ������������������������