Tax v. Having Confronted With This, Mr.e.i.sanmathi

IN THB HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 28[th]DAY OF APRIL 2014 PRESENT THER HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DILIP B BHOSALE AND THR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICBK B MANOHAR ITA.NO.179/2012 BRTWEEN: 1.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IILCRNTRAL REVBNUB BUILDINGSQUEENS ROADBANGALORE 560001.CRNTRAL REVBNUB BUILDINGSQUEENS ROADBANGALORE 560001. 2.THR DEPUTY COMMISSIONBROF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 11(4)OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 11(4) BANGALORE. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI E I SANMATHI, ADV.,). AN): M/S.RAMSOFT TECHNOLOGIES PVT.LTD.NO.4/1, DEVAIAH COURT, ©PP CROSS, 5 MAIN, 3 BLOCK,JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 O11. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI B.G.CHIDANANDA URS, ADV.) THIS ITA FILED UNDER SKC.260-A OF INCOMETAX|ACT|1961,ARISING|OUTORORDER DATED:31/01/2012)PASSEDIN|ITANO.380/BANG/2011, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR2006-07 PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL|QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN AND ALLOW|THR APEBEPAL AND SEI ASIDE THE ORDER DATE31.01.2012PASSEDBY|THEITAT‘BRBBENCH,|BANGALORE, IN ITA NO.380/BANG/2011 IN THEINTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS ITA COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS|DAY, |Dilip B. Bhosale J.,DBLIVRBRBD THRHOLLOWING: PC;| We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 2.|LearnedcounselappearingfOrthe|respondent, at the outset, invited our attention to thejudgment of this Court inCommissioner of Income Tax v. Yokogawa India Ltd, in ITA No.78/2011 &9918/2011 decided on 9.8.201and submitted thatthe substantial questions of law raised in this appealare squarely covered by this judgment and they deserveto be answered in favour of the assessee and against therevenue in terms thereof. 3. Having confronted with this, Mr.E.I.Sanmathi, learned counsel appearing for the appellants-revenuesubmitted that the revenue has filed Special LeavePetition1nNthe.pupremeCourtagainsttheaforementioned judgment of this Court and the appealis pending. He, however, fairly states that this appealmay be disposed of in terms of that judgment withdirection to the Assessing Officer to pass consequentialorder only aiter SLP/Appeal is disposed of by theSupreme Court. In other words, he submitted that theAssessing Officer may be directed to pass consequentialorder in the light of the order of the Supreme Court that.will be passed in the abovementioned SLP/Appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent, has noobjection for making such observations and for disposalof this appeal. o. In the circumstances, we dispose of this appeal in terms of the judgment of this Court in.Yokogawa India Ltd.,answering all the substantial questions oflaw in favour of the assessee and against the revenue,with direction to the Assessing Officer to passconsequential order under Section 260-1A of the IncomeTax Act, 1961, only in the light of the judgment of thesupreme Court in the aforementioned SLP/Appeal thatwill be passed in due course. Nocosts. Sd/- JUDGE. sd/- JUDGE. Srl.