Ita/436/2014 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. M/S Biocon Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURUDATED THIS THE 1/[TH|]DAY OF DECEMBER 2020.PRESENT| THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND| THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASADILT.A. NO.436 OF 2014 BETWEEN: 1.|THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX LTU, JSS TOWERS BSK III STAGE, BANGALORE. 2.|THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX. LTU, JSS TOWERS. BSK III STAGE, BANGALORE-560085. _... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.,) AND* M/S. BIOCON LTD.,2OTH KM, HOSUR ROADELECTRONIC CLTY|BEBBAGOD]BANGALORE-560100. (BY SMT. MANASA ANANTHAN, ADV., &SRI. T. SURYANARAYANA, ADV.,) ~. RESPONDENT THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SEC. 260-A OF INCOME TAX|ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 30.04.2014 PASSEDIN ITA NO.1206/BANG/2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08PRAYING TO: | (i) FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW,STATED ABOVE. (ii) ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER.PASSED BY THE ITAT, BANGALORE IN ITA NO.1206/BANG/2010—DATED 30.04.2014 AND CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE.COMMISSIONER CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE.DEPUTY.COMMISSIONEROF.INCOME|TAX,|CIRCLE-11(2),BANGALORE. THIS I.7T.A. COMING ON FOR’ HEARING, THIS’ DAY, | ALOK ARADHE J.,DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: | JUDGMENT Mr.K.V.Aravind, learned counsel for the revenue. Smt.ManasaAnantnan,learned.counse|lfortheaSSeSSee, 2. This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income TaxAct, 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 2007-08. The appeal wasadmitted by a Bench of this Court vide order dated|01.06.2015 on the following substantial questions of law: 7WhetherOf)thefactsandInthecircumstances of the case and in law ftheTribunal was right in holding that the discount:on issue of ESOP Is allowable deduction incomputing the income under the head profits|and gains of the business?| 2D.WhetherOf)thefactsandInthecircumstances of the case and in law the'Tribunal was right in holding that differencebetween market price of tne snares at tne|time of grant of option and offer price.amounts to discount and the same has to be|treated as remuneration to the employees for|their continuity of service?| 5,WhetherOf)thefactsandIn.thecircumstances of the case and in law the'Tribunal committed an error in not examining:the scheme of ESOP from which it ts clear that|the employees will not get any rignt in tne|shares till completion of the period prescribed|and the expenditure claimed is contingent andrecorded perverse finding? 7AWhetherOf)thefactsandInthecircumstances of the case and in law the'tribunal was correct in holding that the|discount on tsssue of ESOP Is_ allowablaqeaduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act?. 5.WhetherOf)thefactsandInthecircumstances of the case and in law the'tribunal was correct in holding that tne|unabsorbed depreciation of non 10B unit!cannot be set off against the income of the| 10B unit without taking into consideration tneamendment to section 10B of the Act?" | 3. Learned counsel for the assessee submits tnat tne)substantial questions of law involved in this appeal havealready been answered against the revenue by a judgment ofthis Court dated 11.11.2020 passed in ITA No.653/2013.The aforesaid submission could not be disputed by thelearned counsel for the revenue. 4 In view of the aforesaid submission and for the.reasons assigned by this Court in ITA No.653/2013 in thejudgment dated 11.11.2020, the substantial questions of lawframed in this appeal are answered against the revenue. In the result, we do not find any merit in the appeal. The same fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/-—JUDGE Sd/-JUDGE