Ita/863/2018 Of Pr Commissioner Of Income Tax -4 v. M/S Karnataka Power Corporation Limited

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1/ DAY OF MARCH, 2020 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNAINCOME TAX APPEAL NO.863 OF 2018 BETWEEN: 1.THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF | INCOME TAX - 4, B.M.T.C. COMPLEX,| KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU. 2).THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, CIRCLE — 11(5), © BENGALURU, _.. APPELLANTS | (BY SRI E. I. SANMATHI, ADV.) AND" M/S. KARNATAKA POWERCORPORATION LIMITED,SHAKTHI BHAVAN, NO.82,RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 OOL.PAN: ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI A. SHANKAR, SR. ADV. ALONG WITH |SRI LAVA M., ADV.)SRI LAVA M., ADV.) THIS|INCOMETAXAPPEAL|ISFILEDUNDER|SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT|OF|ORDER|DATED: 31.07.2018 PASSEDIN|LIANO.509/BANG/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-2010 PRAYING TO: DECIDE THE FOREGOING QUESTION OF LAW AND,/ OR SUCH OTHER QUESTIONS OF LAW AS MAY|BE FORMULATTED BY THE COURT AS DEEMED|FIT./ OR SUCH OTHER QUESTIONS OF LAW AS MAY|BE FORMULATTED BY THE COURT AS DEEMED|FIT. SET.ASIDE|THE|APPELLAI IEORDER|DATED: 31.0/7.2018 PASSED BY THE INCOME TAAPPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A’ BENCH, BENGALURU,|AS|SQUGHFOR, IN|HERESPONDENT|ASSESSEE'S CASE, IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS IN|LIANO.509/BANG/2014FO.A.Y.2009-10(ANNEXURE -— A)DATED: 31.0/7.2018 PASSED BY THE INCOME TAAPPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A’ BENCH, BENGALURU,|AS|SQUGHFOR, IN|HERESPONDENT|ASSESSEE'S CASE, IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS IN|LIANO.509/BANG/2014FO.A.Y.2009-10(ANNEXURE -— A) GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF AS DEEMED FIT, IN|THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL COMING ON FORADMISSION, THIS DAY,ALOK ARADHE J.,MADE |THEFOLLOWING: JUDGMENT This appeal is filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), by theRevenue, being aggrieved by the order dated 31.07.2018|passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru,|in ITA.No.509/Bang/2014. 2. The following substantial questions of law are proposed for consideration in this appeal: 7Whether on the facts and circumstancesof the case, the Tribunal is right in law insetting aside the aadition made byassessingautnorityInrespect.Of|provisionforleaveencashmentOf|Rs.28,99,05,975/-and.provisionOf|Rs./5,53,84,608/- for computation of115JB by following its earlier order dated 11/10/2013|passedInLITANo.711/Bang/2011.Dyholdingthatprovisions of section 115JB of the Act arenot applicable to facts of present case asassessee is engaged in the business ofgeneration of power even when the sameis applicable to facts of present case andprovisions of the Act? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances|of the case, the Tribunal’s order can beSaid as perverse in nature in notadjudicating the issue of provision forleave encasnment, pension wnhicn§ arUunascertained llabilities and deserves to be disallowed which computing incomeUnder section 115JB of the Act? 3.|Whether on the facts and circumstancesof the case, the Tribunal’s order can beSaid as perverse in nature in notadjudicating issue pertaining to S80IAdeduction even thougn same is pieadedby Revenue?”of the case, the Tribunal’s order can beSaid as perverse in nature in notadjudicating issue pertaining to S80IAdeduction even thougn same is pieadedby Revenue?” 3. When the matter is taken up today, learned|counsel for the parties submitted that the proposed)substantial question of law No.2 is answered by a Division.Bencn of this Court vide judgment dated 16.01.2020 in|I.T.A.No.18/2014. Therefore, in view of the unequivocalsubmission, Section 115JB of the Act, to the facts situationof the case, the substantial question of law No.1 does notarise. 4. It is further submitted that the issue pertaining toSection 80IA of the Act, the Tribunal nas followed the|order passed in the previous assessment year 2007-08 and. the same is answered against the Revenue. Therefore, inview of the preceding analysis, no substantial questions of| law arise for consideration in this appeal. Accordingly, the 3. When the matter is taken up today, learned|counsel for the parties submitted that the proposed)substantial question of law No.2 is answered by a Division.Bencn of this Court vide judgment dated 16.01.2020 in|I.T.A.No.18/2014. Therefore, in view of the unequivocalsubmission, Section 115JB of the Act, to the facts situationof the case, the substantial question of law No.1 does notarise. 4. It is further submitted that the issue pertaining toSection 80IA of the Act, the Tribunal nas followed the|order passed in the previous assessment year 2007-08 and. the same is answered against the Revenue. Therefore, inview of the preceding analysis, no substantial questions of| law arise for consideration in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Sd/-.JUDGE Sd/-.JUDGE nvj