Section 115Jb(2), Of) The Facts And Circumstances Of The Case? v. Dcit) Dated 05.01.2021 And In Ita

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURUDATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF APRIL 20271 PRESENT| THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND| THE HON’/BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL 1T.A. NO.184 OF 2017BETWEEN: M/S. KARNATAKA STATE INDUSTRIALAND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENTCORPORATION LID.,.REP. BY ITS CHAIRMANAND MANAGING DIRECTOR|SMT. P. HEMALATHAKHANIJA BHAVAN, NO.49_41TH FLOOR, EAST WINGRACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE-S60001—PAN: . (BY MR. A. SHANKAR, SR. COUNSEL FOR|MR. M. LAVA, ADV.,) .... APPELLAN/ AND* DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXCENTRAL CIRCLE-11(5)R.P. BHAVAN, OPP. RBINRUPATHUNGA ROADBANGALORE-56000 1. PRESENTLYBMTC BUILDINGKORAMANGALA 6TH BLOCKBANGALORE-560095. (BY MR. K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.,) ~. RESPONDENT THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX|ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 09.12.2016 PASSEDIN ITA NO.1660/BANG/2013, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF.LAW AS STATED ABOVE AND ANSWER THE SAME IN FAVOUR OF.THE APPELLANT. ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THEFINDINGS TO THE EXTENT AGAINST THE APPELLANT IN JHE.ORDER PASSED BY THE ITAT, BENGALURU BENCH IN IIANO.1660/BANG/2013 DATED 9.12.2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENTYEAR 2010-11. PASS SUCH OTHER ORDERS, AS THIS HON BLECOURT DEEMS FIT AND PROPER TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. THIS ILT.A. COMING ON FOR’ HEARING, THIS DAY,ALOK ARADHE J.,DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: | JUDGMENT Mr.A.Snankar,learned|Senior.counsel]for Mr.S.Annamalai, learned counsel for the assessee. Mr.K.V.Aravind, learned counsel for the revenue|has entered appearance through video conferencing. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income TaxAct, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act’ for short)has been filed by the assessee against the order dated|09.12.2016 passed by the Income Tax AppellateTribunal. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to.the Assessment Year 2010-11. The appeal was.)admitted by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 05.12.2017 on the following substantial questions of law: "“(1) Whether the Tribunal is justified inlaw in holding that the appellant is not entitled|tothereduction of.theamount.ofRs.5,24,38,393/- credited to the profit and loss|account on account of reversal of provision for.bad and doubtful Gebts under section 115JB oftne Act, on the facts and circumstances of the|Case ? (il) Withoutprejudice, whethertheTribunal in law failed to take note of the fact of|retrospective amendment by Finance (No.2) Act, 2009 with effect from 1.4.2001, by which the|computation of book profit as per MAT provisionsreguires the provision for bad and doubtful debtsto be added back and consequently book profits|under MAT provisions are to computed for such|earlier assessment years in accordance witn)amended scheme of the Act and further such|amended computation ought to form the basis ofcomputation of MAT for the subsequent years|and accordingly tne authorities below ought to.nave allowed the reduction of Rs.16,11,65,105/-under proviso to clause (i) of Explanation 1 to. section115JB(2),Of)thefactsand|circumstances of the case? (ii) Withoutprejudice, whethertheTribunal in law failed to appreciate that the.appellant had added back the provision for badand doubtful debts for certain years and hence|ought to nave granted the deauction in respect.of reversal of provision for bad and doubtfuldebts at least to that extent, on the facts andcircumstances of the case?" 2. When the matter was taken up today, learnedcounsel for the assessee submitted that the aforesaidsubstantial questions of law have already been answered bythis Court in ITA No.409/2014 (Karnataka State Industrial|and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited Vs.DCIT) dated 05.01.2021 and in ITA No.11/2021 (KSIIDC Vs.DCIT) decided on 05.02.2021. The aforesaid submission|could not be disputed by the learned counsel for the revenue. 3. For the reasons assigned in the judgments dated05.01.2021 and 05.02.2021 passed in ITA No.409/2014 and 2. When the matter was taken up today, learnedcounsel for the assessee submitted that the aforesaidsubstantial questions of law have already been answered bythis Court in ITA No.409/2014 (Karnataka State Industrial|and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited Vs.DCIT) dated 05.01.2021 and in ITA No.11/2021 (KSIIDC Vs.DCIT) decided on 05.02.2021. The aforesaid submission|could not be disputed by the learned counsel for the revenue. 3. For the reasons assigned in the judgments dated05.01.2021 and 05.02.2021 passed in ITA No.409/2014 and ITA No.11/2021, the substantial questions of law areanswered in favour of the assessee. In the result, order dated 09.12.2016 for the’Assessment Year 2010-11 to the extent relating to theassessee in respect of the aforesaid substantial questions oflaw, is hereby quasned and the appeal is allowed. Sd/-JUDGE Sd/-JUDGE