Ita/864/2018 Of Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-6 v. M/S Sapa Extrusion India Pvt Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED 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 1LT.A. NO.864 OF 2018 BEI|WEEN 1.PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX-6INCOME TAX-6 BMTC COMPLEX, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE 2DDY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOMET AX)CIRCLE - 6(1)(1), BMTC COMPLEX.KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU.CIRCLE - 6(1)(1), BMTC COMPLEX.KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU. _. APPELLANTS. (BY SRI E.I. SANMATHI, ADV.) ANDM/S SAPA EXTRUSION INDIA PVT. LTD., NO.54, VIRGO NAGAR,OLD MADRAS ROAD,BANGALORE-560049PANAAOCS46 3 3C RESPONDENT| (BY SRI BALRAM R.RAO, ADV.) THIS IJ§.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OI.T.ACT, 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED: 06/07/2018|PASSED IN ITA NO.402/BANG/2018, FOR THE ASSESSMENTYEAR 2013-2014 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:06/07/2018|PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘C"BENCH, BENGALURU, IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS NO. ITA'NO.402/BANG/2018 (ANNEXURE-A) FOR THE ASSESSMENTYEAR 2013-14 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 |This appeal under Section 260-A of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘theAct’, for short) has been preferred by the revenue. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment.Year 2013-14. The appeal was admitted by a Bench ofthis Court vide order dated 20.06.2019 on the following substantial questions of law: "1. Whether on tne facts and circumstancesof the case, the Tribunal is Justified inholding that the assessing authority isnot right tn disallowing non-competitionfee of Rs.28 crores paid by assessee to|M/s. Alufit India Pvt. Ltd., as per.agreement dated 9.5.2011 by holding|thattheadSSCSSCEhadacquiredintangible asset by relying upon thedecision of Delhi High Court in the case.of M/s. Sharp Business Systems Ltd.,|V/s.CIT and also in the case of CIT V/s. Ingersol Rand International Limited?of the case, the Tribunal is Justified inholding that the assessing authority isnot right tn disallowing non-competitionfee of Rs.28 crores paid by assessee to|M/s. Alufit India Pvt. Ltd., as per.agreement dated 9.5.2011 by holding|thattheadSSCSSCEhadacquiredintangible asset by relying upon thedecision of Delhi High Court in the case.of M/s. Sharp Business Systems Ltd.,|V/s.CIT and also in the case of CIT V/s. Ingersol Rand International Limited? 2D.Whether on the facts and circumstancesof the case, the Tribunal is Justified inallowing depreciation on non-compete|fee eventhough the assessing authority|rightly 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 inallowing depreciation on non-compete|fee eventhough the assessing authority|rightly 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, learned counsel 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 in ITA No.680/2019, we hold that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby|dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/-) JUDGE|