Ita/7/2012 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Business Process Outsourcing India Pvt Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE. DATED THIS THE 29[th]DAY OF APRIL 2014. PRESENT THE HON‘'BLE MR. JUSTICE DILIP B BHOSALE AND| THE HON‘'BLE MR. JUSTICE B MANOHAR ITA.NO.7/2012 BETWEEN 1.THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX |CR BUILDING, QUEENS ROADCR BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE| 2.THE INCOME TAX OFFICERWARD-11(1), C.R.BUILDINGWARD-11(1), C.R.BUILDING QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI K V ARAVIND, ADV.,)| AND M/S BUSINESS PROCESS OUTSOURCING INDIA PVT LTDC/O SANTOSH KUMAR PODDAR|TOWER 2D, VRINDAVAN TECH VILLAGEDEVARABEESANAHALLI, OUTER RING ROAD|BANGALORE-560087... RESPONDENT | (BY SRI S PARTHASARATHI, ADV., A/W SRI K MALLAHARAO, ADV.,) THIS ITA FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF I.T.ACT, 1961 ARISING|OUT|OFORDER|DATED18-08-2011 PASSEDINITANO.1288/BANG/2010, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-2006,PRAYING TO: I. FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAWSTATED THEREIN, II. ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE |ORDER DATED 18/08/2011 PASSED BY THE ITAT, BANGALORE IN ITA NO.1288/BANG/2010 DATED 18-08-2011 AND CONFIRM THE ORDER.OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSEDBY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(1), BANGALORE, IN THEINTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS ITA COMING ON FOR’ ADMISSION, THIS DAY, |Dilip B. Bhosale J.,DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING PC: We have heard learned counsel for the parties. By|consent, the appeal is heard for final disposal at the stage|of admission. 2).Learned counsel appearing for the respondent,at the outset, invited our attention to the judgment of this.Court In|Tata Elxsi Ltd., [349 ITR 98 (Kar)]andsubmitted that the substantial question of law raised inthis appeal are squarely covered by this judgment and it)deserves to be answered in favour of the assessee and§against the revenue in terms thereof. _ 3. Having confronted with this, Mr.K.V.Aravind,learned counsel appearing for the appellants-revenue|submitted that the revenue has filed Special Leave Petition In,tneSupreme.Courtagainstthe.aforementioned juagment of this Court and the appeal is pending. He,|however, fairly states that this appeal may be disposed of.in terms of that judgment with direction to the Assessing|Officer to pass consequential order only after SLP/Appeal isdisposed of py the Supreme Court. In other words, he.submitted that the Assessing Officer may be directed topass consequential order in the lignt of the order of the)Supreme Court that will be passed in the abovementioned|SLP/Appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent, has no|objection for making such observations and for disposal of this appeal. 5. In the circumstances, we dispose of this appeal interms of the judgment of this Court in)Tata Eixsi Ltd.,answering the substantial question of law in favour of the)assessee and against the revenue, witn direction to the)Assessing Officer to pass consequential order under)Section 260-1A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, only in the 2:<���58���-�>61<=-3��58���-��690-=-��560��:3���-�.850-=-3�:53-1����&�99-.2���.��A:22�?-�9.77-1�:3�16-� 45607-$����5�457�7$� ����������1&!�����,��������1&!�����,����� ����