When The Matter Was Taken Up Today, Learned Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Issue Involved In This Appeal Is Squarely Covered By A Decision Of This v. Dcit, [2014] 266 Ctr 0246 (Kar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16 DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY I.T.A. NO.800 OF 2017 BETWEEN: 1. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIT(A) 5 FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA, BENGALURU-560095. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-2(1)(2), 2 FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA, BENGALURU-560095. ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI.K.V.ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) AND: M/S DUSTERS TOTAL SOLUTIONS SERVICES PVT. LTD., NO.40, 4 FLOOR, ZAKAKIA CENTRE, 100 FT. ROAD, INDIRANAGAR, BENGALURU -560038. PAN: AACCD 5989Q. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. M.R.VANAJA, ADVOCATE) THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 21.04.2017 PASSED IN ITA NO.1266/BANG/2015, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-2013 PRAYING TO; (i) FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE; (ii) ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN ITA NO.1266/BANG/2015 DATED 21.04.2017 CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), BENGALURU; (iii) TO PASS SUCH OTHER SUITABLE ORDERS, AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Mr.K.V.Aravind, learned counsel for the revenue. Mrs. M.R.Vanaja, learned counsel for the assessee. This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been filed by the revenue against the order dated 21.04.2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 2. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment Year 2012-13. The appeal was admitted by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 04.01.2018 on the following substantial question of law. “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in allowing the deduction when matter is pending before Supreme Court to decide whether 43B includes both employers and employees contribution? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in setting aside the disallowance made under section 43B(b) of Rs.4,28,54,679/- on account of belated remittance of employees contribution towards PF and ESI to the Government account beyond the dates prescribed in the respective laws and treating the same as income for respective assessment year in terms of section 2(24)(x) r.w.s 36(1)(va) of the Act even when the assessing authority has disallowed the same as per the parameters of said provision?” 3. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue involved in this appeal is squarely covered by a decision of this Court in M/s.Essae Teraoka P. Ltd., Vs. DCIT, [2014] 266 CTR 0246 (Kar). 4. The aforesaid submission made on behalf of learned counsel for the assessee could not be disputed by learned counsel for the revenue. 5. For the reasons assigned by the Division Bench of this Court in the aforementioned judgment, the substantial questions of law framed in this appeal are answered against the revenue and in favour of the assesee. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE