Ita/48/2019 Of Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - 6 v. M/S Sapa Extrusion India Pvt Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURUDATED THIS THE 22 DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND| THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD LT.A. NO.48 OF 2019 BEI|WEEN 1.PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX - 6, INCOME TAX - 6, BMTC COMPLEX, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU, 2DDY. COMMISSIONER OF ~INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-6 (1)(1), BMTC COMPLEX.KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU.INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-6 (1)(1), BMTC COMPLEX.KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU. _. APPELLANTS. (BY SRI EI SANMATHI, ADV.) AND M/S SAPA EXTRUSION INDIA PVT. LTD., | NO.54, VIRGO NAGAR,OLD MADRAS ROAD,BANGALORE-560 049. RESPONDENT| (BY SRI BALARAM R.RAO, ADV.) THIS IJ§.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OI.T.ACT, 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED: 14/09/2018|PASSED IN ITA NO.1662/BANG/2018, FOR THE ASSESSMENTYEAR 2014-2015 PRAYING TO DECIDE THE FOREGOING|QUESTION OF LAW AND / OR SUCH OTHER QUESTIONS OF|LAW AS MAY BE FORMULATED BY THE HON’BLE COURT AS|DEEMED FIT. (a) SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED:14/09/2018|PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘“B”BENCH, BENGALURU, IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS NO. ITA.NO.1662/BANG/2018 (ANNEXURE-A) FOR THE ASSESSMENTYEAR 2014-15 AS SOUGHT FOR IN THIS APPEAL. THIS I.7T.A. COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THISDAY,ALOK ARADHE J.,DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Mr. E. I. Sanmathi, learned counsel for the) revenue. Mr. Balram R. Rao, learned counsel for the) aSSeSSAE., 2.|Tnis appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) has been preferred by the revenue. Thesubject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment Year 2014-15. The appeal was admitted by a Bench ofthis Court vide order dated 03.07.2019 on the following substantial questions of law: "1. Whetner on the facts and In thecircumstances of the case, the Tribunalis Justified in holaing that the assessing|authority is not right in disallowing non-competition fee of Rs.28 crores paid by|assessee to M/s. Alufit India Pvt. Ltd. as peragreementdated95.7011.by holding that the assessee had acquired|intangible asset by relying upon the)decision in the case of assessee itselfand also in the case of CIT v/s. IngersollRand Internationa! Limited?circumstances of the case, the Tribunalis Justified in holaing that the assessing|authority is not right in disallowing non-competition fee of Rs.28 crores paid by|assessee to M/s. Alufit India Pvt. Ltd. as peragreementdated95.7011.by holding that the assessee had acquired|intangible asset by relying upon the)decision in the case of assessee itselfand also in the case of CIT v/s. IngersollRand Internationa! Limited? ?_|Whether on the facts and circumstancesof the case, the Tribunal is Justified in|allowing depreciation on non-competefee even though the assessing authorityrightly held that depreciation on non-compete fee is not allowable as per|Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act?”|of the case, the Tribunal is Justified in|allowing depreciation on non-competefee even though the assessing authorityrightly held that depreciation on non-compete fee is not allowable as per|Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act?”| 3.When the matter was taken up today, learnedcounsel for the assessee submitted that the aforesaid| substantial questions of law have been answered against the revenue by this Court vide Judgment dated10.03.2020 passed in ITA No.680/2019. 4The aforesaid.SubDmIssSIocould not be! disputed by learned counsel for the revenue. 5.|For the reasons assigned by a Bench of thisCourt in the Judgment dated 10.03.2020 passed inITA No.680/2019, we hold that no substantial questionof law arises for consideration in this appeal. In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby|cCismissec. qn/-|CT-HR| Sd/-| JUDGE JUDGE| Sd/-