Rp/57/2021 Of M/S. Wipro Ltd v. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 7

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURUDATED THIS THE 6 DAY OF AUGUST 20271PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND| THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD REVIEW PETITION NO.57 OF J2O2 BETWEEN M/S Wipro Ltd.,Doddakannelli,Sarjapura Road,Bengaluru-560 025,|Represented by its, Senior Manager( Finance),Sri. Achal Dass. | —. Petitioner| (By Sri.Ganesh S. Senior Counsel forSri. Krishna R.B., Advocate) AND 1.|Principal Commissioner,Of Income-tax 7,BMTC Complex,Koramangala,|Bengaluru-560 034. 2 |Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-12(5),BMTC Complex,Koramangala,|Bengaluru-560 034. .. RespondentsIncome-tax, Circle-12(5),BMTC Complex,Koramangala,|Bengaluru-560 034. .. Respondents (By Sri. E.I. Sanmathi, Advocate) Tnis Review petition is filed under Order 47 Rule.1 of CPC, praying to reviewa) Tnat.tneSaldJudgment of this Hon'ble Court dated:09.12.2020 inITA No.464/2017 #=~be reviewed and rectified bydeleting para 10 of the Judgment. D)|For sucn furtner and otner orders and airections|as this Hon'ble Court may consider appropriate, in thecircumstances of the case. This review petition coming on for admission,| this day,Alok Aradhe J, made the following: ORDER Mr.S.Ganesh, learned Senior Counsel for the)reviewpetitioner|anaMr.E.I.Sanmatni,|jiearnedcounsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Heard. 2.|TNIs|petitionNaspeen|filedseekingmodification of the judgment dated 09.12.2020passed by this Court in ITA No.464/201/7. 3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitionersubmitted that paragraph 10 contains a direction forremand of the matter to the Tribunal and the same ijisincongruous to the finding recorded in para 11, inwhich substantial question of law has been answeredin favour of the assessee. | 4. On the otner nand, learned counsel for therevenue submitted that against the judgment dated09.17.7020|revenuehas.filedSLP(Civil) No.11582/2021, which is pending. 5. We have considered the submissions made on.both sides and have perused the records. Mere filingof the Special Leave Petition before the SupremeCourt, would not be a bar to exercise of this power to.correct the error in the judgment passed by this Courtwhich has crept in. 7. From perusal of record it is evident thatparagraph 10 or 11 are incongruous. In para 11,Substantial question of law No.2 framed has beenanswered in favour of the assessee. Therefore, thequestion of remitting the matter to the Tribunal doesnot arise. Therefore para 10 of the judgment dated09.12.2020 passed in ITA No.464/201/7, is deleted. Cm/- Accordingly, review petition is disposed of. Sd/-JUDGESd/-'|JUDGE.