Biocon Limited vs The Deputy
2021 Latest Caselaw 716 Kant

                             1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021

                         PRESENT

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

                           AND

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY

                  I.T.A. NO.415 OF 2014
BETWEEN:

BIOCON LIMITED
20TH KM, HOSUR ROAD
ELECTRONICS CITY P.O.
BANGALORE-560100
REP. HEREIN BY ITS
DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER
TAX & COMPLIANCE
MR. B. SHIVADUTT.
                                               .... APPELLANT
(BY MR. SURYANARAYANA T, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
       LARGE TAXPAYERS UNIT
       JSS TOWERS, 100 FEET RING ROAD
       BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE
       BANGALORE-560085.

2.     THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
       LTU, JSS TOWERS, 100 FEET RING ROAD
       BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE
       BANGALORE-560085.
                                             ... RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. K.V. ARAVIND, ADVOCATE)
                           ---
                                2



       THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SEC. 260-A OF INCOME TAX
ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 30.04.2014 PASSED
IN ITA NO.368/BANG/2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04,
PRAYING TO:
       (i) FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW
STATED ABOVE.
       (ii) ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE
ITAT DATED 30.04.2014 IN ITA NO.368/BANG/2010 (ANNEXURE-
'D') TO THE EXTENT QUESTIONED HEREIN.

     THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING,            THIS     DAY,
ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                         JUDGMENT

This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax

Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short) has

been filed by the assessee. The subject matter of the appeal

pertains to the Assessment Year 2003-04. The appeal was

admitted by a Bench of this Court vide order dated

01.12.2014 on the following substantial questions of law:

"1. The Tribunal was correct in upholding the reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Act, although the necessary conditions therefor were not satisfied?

2. The Tribunal was right in holding that the Appellant was not entitled to deduction under Section 35(2AB) of the Act to the extent the expenses eligible for deduction under the said provision pertained to a unit entitled for deduction under Section 10B of the Act, more

so when no disallowance was made by the Assessing Officer under the said provision in the assessment order passed by him?

3. The Tribunal was right in holding that the weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB) would not be available to the Appellant while computing the income of the unit eligible for relief under Section 10B of the Act?

4. The Tribunal was right in holding that Section 14A of the Act was applicable to the appellant although it had no exempt income?"

2. For the reasons assigned by us in ITA No.416/2014

passed today, the order dated 30.04.2014 insofar as it

pertains to the finding that the assessee is not entitled to

claim deduction under Section 35(2AB) of the Act is hereby

quashed.

In the result, the appeal is disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

RV