Ita/426/2014 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. M/S. Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd.,), Decided On 17.3.2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 07 DAY OF JUNE, 2021 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY ITA NO.426/2014 BETWEEN 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX C.R.BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD QUEENS ROAD BENGALURU . 2. THE ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 11 (5), RASHTROTHANA BHAVAN, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU 560 001. CIRCLE 11 (5), RASHTROTHANA BHAVAN, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU 560 001. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI K V ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) AND: M/S KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LTD., SHAKTHI BHAVAN, NO.32, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI M LAVA, ADVOCATE) THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE, ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN ITA NO.1341/BANG/2012 DATED 9.5.2014 AND CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 11(5), BENGALURU. THIS ITA IS COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT The present Income tax Appeal is arising out of the order dated 9.5.2014 passed in ITA.No.1341/Bang/2012 by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru. 2. This Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties has framed the following substantial questions of law; “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee is entitled to deduction of expenses incurred towards operation and maintenance of civil structure, electrical and mechanical appliances holding that crystallization of expenses had happened during the relevant Assessment Year without appreciating that the expenditure was relating to other assessment years and the assessee has not substantiated that the liability was crystallized during the year? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that Section 115JB was not applicable to the assesee in view of Explanation-3 to section 115JB without appreciating that the amendment is applicable only with effect from 1.4.2013 relevant Assessment Year 2013-14? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case of Tribunal was correct in accepting the additional ground raised regarding applicability of Section 115JB without appreciating that the assessee has neither raised the issue before the Assessing Officer or before the Appellate Commissioner and the assessee itself in it’s return of income has admitted the applicability of Section 115JB of the Act?” 3. Sri.Aravind, learned counsel for the Income Tax Department was fair enough in informing this Court that he is not pressing substantial question of law No.1. It has also been informed to this Court that substantial question of law Nos.2 and 3 have already been decided in favour of the assessee in ITA.No.143/2014 (The Commissioner of Income-Tax & another vs. M/s. Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd.,), decided on 17.3.2020. 4. The order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in paragraphs 2 to 4 reads as under; “2. The following substantial questions of law are proposed for consideration in this appeal: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee is entitled to deduction under section 80IA of the Act without setting off of the loss of loss-making units against the profits of the profit – making units, without taking into consideration that deduction is provided to the eligible business and not for an undertaking? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was correct in holding that section 115JB was not applicable to the assessee in view of Explanation – 3 to section 115JB without appreciating that the amendment is applicable only with effect from 1.4.2013 relevant Assessment year 2013 – 14? “2. The following substantial questions of law are proposed for consideration in this appeal: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee is entitled to deduction under section 80IA of the Act without setting off of the loss of loss-making units against the profits of the profit – making units, without taking into consideration that deduction is provided to the eligible business and not for an undertaking? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was correct in holding that section 115JB was not applicable to the assessee in view of Explanation – 3 to section 115JB without appreciating that the amendment is applicable only with effect from 1.4.2013 relevant Assessment year 2013 – 14? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was correct in accepting the additional ground raised regarding applicability of section 115JB without appreciating that the assessee has neither raised the issue before he Assessing officer or before the Appellate Commissioner and the assessee itself in it’s return of income has admitted the applicability of section 115JB of the Act?” 3. When the matter is taken up today, learned counsel for the parties submitted that the proposed substantial question of law No.1 has been already answered by a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 19.01.2015 in I.T.A.No.778/2009, whereas, substantial question of law No.2 is answered by another Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 16.01.2020 in ITA.No.18/2014. Accordingly, substantial question of law No.3 does not survive. 4. In view of the preceding analysis, no substantial questions of law arise for consideration in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.” 5. In light of the aforesaid judgment passed by this Court, as the substantial questions of law have already been answered in the aforesaid appeal, no substantial questions of law arise for consideration in the present appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No orders as to costs. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE nd