Learned Senior Counsel For The Assesseesubmitted That The Second Substantial Question Of Lawhas Been Answered Against The Revenue In Decision Ofthe Supreme Cour v. Commissioner Of Income Tax’, 245 Itr 278, The}Aforesaid Submission Could Not Be Disputed By Learnedcounsel For The Revenue

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6 DAY OF FEBRUARY 2071.PRESENT| THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’‘’BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASW A BETWEEN: ILT.A. NO.289 OF 2017 1.|PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-4 BMTC COMPLEX, KORAMANGALA BANGALORE. 2.|DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-T AX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE| (BY SRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, ADV.,) .., APPELLANTS~ AND* M/S. LENOVO (INDIA) P. LTD,|FERNS ICON, LEVEL 2DODDENAKUNDI VILLAGEMARATHALLI OUTER RING ROADK.R. PURAM HOBLI, BANGALORE-37|PAN: AABCI33/2H. ~. RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PERCY PARDIWALLA, SR. COUNSEL FOR|SMT. VANI H, ADV.)| THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SEC. 260-A OF INCOME TAX|ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 21.10.2016 PASSEDIN IT(TP)A NO.373/BANG/2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR2011-12, 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 AND SET! ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 21.10.2016 PASSED BY THE.INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, BENGALURU, ASSOUGHT FOR IN THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSE'S CASE, IN APPEALPROCEEDINGS IN IT(TP)A NO.373/BANG/2016 FOR A.Y. 2011-12.AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF AS DEEMED FIT, IN THEINTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS I.7T.A. COMING ON FOR’ HEARING, THIS’ DAY, | ALOK ARADHE J.,DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: | JUDGMENT This appeal under Section 260A of the Income TaxAct, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short)has been preferred by the revenue. The subject matter|of the appeal pertains to the Assessment year 2011- 1.The appeal was admitted by a bench of this Court videorder dated 08.01.2020 on the following substantial|questions of law:| “(1)Whether,theTribunal|hascommitted an error of law in noiding thatthe estimate of provision done by tneassessee for warranty is_ scientific andsatisfies the condition set out by theHon'ble Apex court in M/s. ROTORKCONTROLS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, 314.ITR 62 and by not taking into account tne facts enumerated by the assessing officerin the assessment order, from which It fs evidentthattheaSSCSSCEChas.done|excessive provisioning for warranty forreducing the tax liability? (il)Whether, the Tribunal has|erred in law in not allowing the additionalprovisionforleaveencashment.and|provision on warranty to the book profitfor the purpose of calculating the bookprofit under Section 115JB of the IncomeAct, 1961 as the aforesaid amount isUunascertained 2" 2.|For the reasons assigned by us in thejudgment passed today in I.T.A.No.1034/201/7, the firstsubstantial questionof law is answered against the)revenue. | 3Learned Senior counsel for the assesseesubmitted that the second substantial question of lawhas been answered against the revenue in decision ofthe Supreme Court in.Bharath Earth Movers vs. Commissioner of Income Tax’, 245 ITR 278, the}aforesaid submission could not be disputed by learnedcounsel for the revenue. For the reasons assigned in the aforesaid decision,the second substantial question of law is answeredagainst the revenue. In the result, we do not find any merit in this|appeal, the same fails and is nereby dismissed. Sd/-JUDGE. Sd/-JUDGE.