Ita/535/2007 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Texas Instruments (India) Pvt Ltd

- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 17[th]DAY OF FRBRUARY 2014. PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE DILIP B.BHOSALE AN 1 THR HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.MANOQHAR I.T.A.NO.535/2007CvWw1.T.A.NO5537/2007 BHIWEEWN: 1.|The Commissioner of Income Tax, Central circle, C.R.Building, Queens Road, Bangalore. oD The Asst. Commissioner of Income TaxCentral Circle — 12(3).Central Circle — 12(3). C R Building, Queens Road Bangalore. APPELLANTS(common) (By Sri.K.V.Aravind, Adv.) ANT) M/s.Texas Instruments (India ) P.Ltd.,Wind Tunnel Road,Golf View Homes,Murugeshpalya,Bangalore-560 O17. — RBSPONDEBENT (common) (By Sri.K.P.Kumar, Sr. Adv. for Smt.Vani H. Adv.) These appeals are filed under Section 260-A of].T.Act, 1961, arising out of the order dated 21.12.2006.passed1nITANo.274/Bang/2005_&ITA.No.2/73/Bang/2009 for the Assessment years 2002-03and 2001-02 respectively, praying to formulate thesubstantial questions of law stated therein and allowthe appeal and set aside the order passed by the ITAT,Bangalore,1n ITANo.2/74/Bang/2005&%ITA.No.2/73/Bang/2005dated21.12.2006|respectively,confirming the order of the Appellate Commissioner &contirmtheorderpassedby theAssistantCommissioner of Income Tax, Circle-12(3), Bangalore, inthe interest of justice and equity. These appeals coming on for hearing this day,DILIP B.BHOSALE J,delivered the following:- PC:| These appeals are directed against the orderpassed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, whereby,Income Tax Appeals filed by the Revenue before itpertaining to the Assessment Years 2001-02 and 2002-O3 have been dismissed, confirming the order passed by the 1[st]Appellate Authority dated 02.12.2004. By that|order, the 1[st]Appellate Authority reversed the orderpassed by the Assessing Officer dated 29.01.2004. 2. In these appeals, the following two substantialquestions of law have been framed by the Revenue:-_ 2)4Whether the Appellate Authoritieswere correct in holding that theprovisions of the Industrial DisputeAct, 1947, are applicable to theassessee company and its workmenin view of the fact that the softwareengineers drew heavy salary andthe assessee company was entitledTO claimthedeductionunderSection 8QOJJAA of the Act?were correct in holding that theprovisions of the Industrial DisputeAct, 1947, are applicable to theassessee company and its workmenin view of the fact that the softwareengineers drew heavy salary andthe assessee company was entitledTO claimthedeductionunderSection 8QOJJAA of the Act? 2C4 Whether the Appellate Authoritieswere correct in holding that theassessee is entitled to exemptionu/s.8Q0JJAA of the Act admittedlywhen the assessee has employed itsworkmen for less than 300 daysand has paid salary of more thanwere correct in holding that theassessee is entitled to exemptionu/s.8Q0JJAA of the Act admittedlywhen the assessee has employed itsworkmen for less than 300 daysand has paid salary of more than 16000which1S|contraryTO conditions prescribed u/s.8Q0JJAAof the Act to avoid benefit by theassessee? 3. We have heard learned counsel for the partiesfirst on the second substantial question of law and wefind that the Tribunal has not recorded any finding onthis question (i.e., question No.2), whereby, the Revenuehas raised a controversy, whether new regular workmenhad completed 300 days employment during theprevious year. In the course of hearing of this appeal,we made certain suggestions, to which, learned counselappearing for the parties, have readily agreed andhence, we are satisfied that these appeals can bedisposed of without recording any further reasons. 4. Considering over all facts and circumstances ofthe case and as agreed by learned counsel for the parties, we dispose of these appeals by the following order:- 2#4 2##4 3. We have heard learned counsel for the partiesfirst on the second substantial question of law and wefind that the Tribunal has not recorded any finding onthis question (i.e., question No.2), whereby, the Revenuehas raised a controversy, whether new regular workmenhad completed 300 days employment during theprevious year. In the course of hearing of this appeal,we made certain suggestions, to which, learned counselappearing for the parties, have readily agreed andhence, we are satisfied that these appeals can bedisposed of without recording any further reasons. 4. Considering over all facts and circumstances ofthe case and as agreed by learned counsel for the parties, we dispose of these appeals by the following order:- 2#4 2##4 The Tribunal shall address the’second question aiter giving anopportunity of being heard to theparties and also allowing them toproduce further evidence/materialsin support of their case, if they sodesire. We make it clear that we-§have not expressed any opinion onthe second question and we Keep allcontentions of the parties open. It is.open to the assessee to raise anissue that even less than 300 daysworking would|beadequateTOsatisfythe.requirement contemplated under Section 8Q0JJAAof the I.T.Act. Insofar as the first question isconcerned, we Keep it open to be.raised by the Revenue, if the secondquestion is decided against them bythe Tribunal for the Assessment|Years 2001-02 and 2002-03 or other Srl. Assessment years in respect of thesame Assessee in further appeal, ifthey so desire, filed under Section260-A of the I.T.Act. It is also openfortheRevenueTO raise.thisquestion in the event, they succeedbefore the ‘Tribunal on the secondquestion and if the Assessee files an.appeal before this Court undersection 260-A of the Act, by filingcross appeal. Accordingly, these appeals are disposed of. Sd/- | JUDGE. sd/-| JUDGE