Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -1 v. I-Gate Computer Systems Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYO.O.C.J. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 923 OF 2016 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -1 ..Appellant Versus I-Gate Computer Systems Ltd..Respondent ................... Mr. Suresh Kumar for the Appellant Mr. Suresh Kumar for the Appellant Mr. Mihir Naniwadekar a/w Mr. Rohan Deshpande and Ms. AlishaPinto for the RespondentMr. Mihir Naniwadekar a/w Mr. Rohan Deshpande and Ms. AlishaPinto for the Respondent ................... CORAM : AKIL KURESHI & M.S. SANKLECHA, JJ. DATE : JANUARY 21, 2019. P.C.: 1.This appeal under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act,1961 (Act), challenges the order dated 27.5.2015 passed bythe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (“the Tribunal” for short).This appeal relates to the Assessment Year 2005-06. 2.Revenue has urged following question of law for ourconsideration:- " Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and inlaw, the Hon'ble High Court did not err in failing to appreciate that theapproving authority i.e Software Technology Park of India (STPI)itself had held the assessee's three units at Chinchwad, Akruti and Millennium Business Park as 'expansion of the existing units' and,moreover, as can be seen from the approvals, the STIP had issuedits no objection to expansion of operations from the existing unitswhich makes it clear that the said units were mere expansion of theexisting units?" 3.The impugned order of the Tribunal dismissed theRevenue's appeal by following the decision of this Court onan identical issue in respect of the same respondent -assessee for assessment year 2002-03 being Income TaxAppeal No. 1148 of 2012 ( The Commissioner of Income Tax -II, Pune Vs. M/s. Patni Computer Systems Ltd [erstwhile nameof the present appellant] ) rendered on 28.2.2013. 4.Mr. Suresh Kumar, the learned counsel appearing forthe Revenue very fairly states that the issue standsconcluded by the decision of this Court in the case of PatniComputer Systems Ltd (supra). Thus, no fault can be foundwith the impugned order of the Tribunal in following thedecision of this Court, more particularly in the view of anydistinction in facts and / or law in this assessment year fromthe assessment year 2002-03 considered by the Tribunalbeing pointed out by the Revenue. 5.Therefore, the question as proposed does not give riseto any substantial question of law. Consequently, thisappeal is dismissed. [ M.S. SANKLECHA, J. ] [ AKIL KURESHI, J ]