The Pr.Commissioner Of vs M/S Cerner Healthcare Solutions
2021 Latest Caselaw 1988 Kant

                                  1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MAY, 2021

                             PRESENT

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

                                AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

                     I.T.A. NO.532 OF 2016
BETWEEN:

1.     The Pr. Commissioner of
       Income - tax, 5th Floor
       BMTC Building, 80 Feet Road
       Kormangala, Bengaluru-560095.

2.     The Income-Tax Officer
       Ward-11(1), Present Address
       Ward- 2(1)(1), 2nd Floor, BMTC
       Building, 80 Feet Road, Koramangala
       Bengaluru - 560 095.                   ... Appellants

(By Sri K V Aravind, Advocate)

AND:

M/s.Cerner Healthcare Solutions
Pvt. Ltd., Levbel-II, `Prestige Obelisk'
Kasturba Road, Bengaluru.                     ... Respondent

(By Kamal Sawhney, Advocate for M/s.Kamath & Kamath)

      THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SEC. 260-A OF INCOME TAX
ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 8.1.2016 PASSED IN
IT (TP)A NO.675/BANG/2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-
08-ANNEXURE-D, PRAYING TO:
      (i) FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW AS
STATED ABOVE
                                2



     (ii) ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS
PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU
BENCH IN IT(TP)A NO.675/BANG/2012 DATED 8.1.2016
ANNEXURE-D CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE
COMMISSIONER AND CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

                         JUDGMENT

Sri K V Aravind, learned counsel for the Revenue.

Sri Kamal Sawhney, learned counsel for the

assessee.

This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax

Act 1961 has been filed by the Revenue against the

order dated 08.01.2016 passed by the Income Tax

Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru. The subject matter of

the appeal pertains to the assessment year 2007-2008.

2. The appeal was admitted on 11.12.2018 on

the following substantial question of law:

"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified insetting aside the disallowance of Rs.3,87,19,625/- under Sectkion 40(a)(a) for

non-deduction of taxes under Section 195 of the I.T.Act even when the ingredients of the said sections are satisfied?

When the matter was takenup today,

learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the

substantial question of law has already been

answered in favour of the assessee by the Bombay

High Court in the case of CIT -VS- GEM PLUS

JEWELLERY INDIA LTD., (2011) 330 ITR 175

(Bom) as well as the decision of this Court in the

case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -VS-

HEWLETT PACKARD GLOBAL SOFT LTD. reported

in (2017) 87 taxmann.com 182 (Karnataka).

3. The aforesaid submission could not be

disputed by the learned counsel for the revenue.

4. In view of the decision of the Bombay

High Court in CIT -vs- Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd.

as well as the decision of this Court in Commissioner

of Income Tax -Vs- Hewlett Packard Global Soft

Ltd., (supra), the substantial question of law is

answered against the Revenue and in favour of the

assessee.

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby

dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

BKM