Ita/442/2015 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Ibm India Pvt 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.442 OF Z2O1 BETWEEN: 1.THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX JSS TOWERS, BSK III STAGE BANGALORE - 560 O85. 2 |THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-T AX JSS TOWERS, BSK III STAGE BANGALORE -—- 560 O85. ... APPELLANTS| (BY SRI.K.V.ARAVIND, ADV.,) AND: M/S IBM INDIA PVT. LTD.,.NO.12, SUBRAMANYA ARCADE BANNERGHATTA MAIN ROAD|BANGALORE - 560 093.PAN AAAC 14403L. .. RESPONDENT| (BY SRI.T.SURYANARAYAN, ADV.) THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T. ACT,1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 10.04.2015 PASSED IN [TA|NO.1369/BANG/2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-2010,|PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO: (1) FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW.STATED THEREIN. (I) ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS)PASSED BY THE ITAT, BANGALORE IN ITA NO.1369/BANG/2015|DATED 10.04.7015 CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE|COMMISSIONER AND CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE JOINT|COMMISSIIONER OF INCOME TAX, LIU, BANGALORE.| THISLIACOMINGONFOR.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)has been preferred by the revenue. The subject matterof the appeal pertains to the Assessment year 2009-10.The appeal was admitted by a bench of this Court videorder dated 11.12.2015 on the following substantialquestion of law: (I)Whether the Tribunal was correct Ingiving relief to the assessee on theissue of principal component of theEMI payment for cars purchased onlease finance basis, by treating thesame as outside the purview of FBTwhich is against the provisions ofCircular No.8/2005? (iI)Whether the Tribunal was correct inallowing relief to assessee, when the expenses are not by any stretchof imagination, in the nature of in-house training expenses wherebythe relaxation provided in QuestionNo.51 of FAQ in Circular No.8/2005dated 29.08.7005 of CBDT wouldnot be available to the assessee? 2.|We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. For the reasonsassigned by us in the order passed today in ITANo.441/2015, the substantial question 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.