Karnataka High Court
The Pr Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S Subex Ltd on 27 May, 2024
Author: Krishna S Dixit
Bench: Krishna S Dixit
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:17601-DB
ITA No. 179 of 2022
C/W ITA No. 180 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MAY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 179 OF 2022
C/W
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 180 OF 2022
IN ITA NO.179/2022:
BETWEEN:
1. THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
5TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD,
KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU 560 095.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(1)(1),
Digitally signed PRESENT ADDRESS, DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1)(1),
by SHARADA 2ND FLOOR, BMTC BUIDLING, 80 FEET ROAD,
VANI B KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU 560 095.
Location: ...APPELLANTS
HIGH COURT
OF (BY SRI. M DILIP.,ADVOCATE AND
KARNATAKA SRI. RAVIRAJ Y V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
M/S SUBEX LTD.,
RMZ ECOWORLD , OUTER RING ROAD,
DEVARABISANAHALLI, BENGALURU 560 103,
PAN NO. AABCS9255R
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. CHYTHANYA K K., SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W
SRI. TATA KRISHNA.,ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:17601-DB
ITA No. 179 of 2022
C/W ITA No. 180 of 2022
THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME
TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 05/02/2020
PASSED IN ITA NO. 2249/BANG/2019, FOR The ASSESSMENT
YEAR 2007-2008. PRAYING TO 1. FORMULATE THE
SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN AND
II. ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED
BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN
ITA NO. 2249/BANG/2019 DATED 05/02/2020 FOR
ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-2008 ANNEXURE-C CONFIRMING THE
ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER AND CONFIRM THE
ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME
TAX CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BENGALURU AND ETC.,
IN ITA NO.180/2022:
BETWEEN:
1. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
5TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING,
80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA,
BENGALURU 560 095.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(1)(1),
PRESENT ADDRESS,
DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1)(1), 2ND FLOOR,
BMTC BUIDLING, 80 FEET ROAD,
KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU 560 095.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. M DILIP.,ADVOCATE AND
SRI. RAVIRAJ Y V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
M/S SUBEX LTD.,
RMZ ECOWORLD ,
OUTER RING ROAD,
DEVARABISANAHALLI,
BENGALURU 560 103.
PAN NO. AABCS9255R
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. CHYTHANYA K K., SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W
SRI. TATA KRISHNA.,ADVOCATE)
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:17601-DB
ITA No. 179 of 2022
C/W ITA No. 180 of 2022
THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME
TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 05/02/2020
PASSED IN ITA NO. 2361/BANG/2019, FOR THE ASSESSMENT
YEAR 2007-2008 PRAYING TO I. FORMULATE THE
SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN AND
II. ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED
BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN
ITA NO. 2361/BANG/2019 DATED 05/02/2020 FOR
ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-2008 ANNEXURE-C AND CONFIRM
THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER CONFIRMING
THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF
INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BENGALURU AND ETC.,
THESE INCOME TAX APPEALS, COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION, THIS DAY, KRISHNA S DIXIT.J., DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal by the Revenue has the following two
substantial questions of law:
"VI. SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW
1. "Whether on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right
in setting aside the disallowance made under
section 35-D of the Act by the assessing
authority by following its earlier order which
has been challenged before this Hon'ble High
Court in ITA No. 684/2015 and also in ITA
No.378/2015 even when the assessing
authority has rightly made the addition by
holding that the assessee company had
acquired the subsidiary companies and for the
purpose of acquisition, had borrowed funds by
issue of GDRs and FCCBs and as the condition
stipulated in section 35-D were not satisfied ?"
NC: 2024:KHC:17601-DB
2. "Whether on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right
in allowing relief to assessee by relying
on section 40(a)(ia) of the which relates to
Revenue business expenditure and Circular
No.37/16 whereas section 35D of the Act in the
instant case is in respect of capital employed -
capital expenditure and cannot be taken as
profits from business for the purpose of
calculation of deduction under section 10A of
the Act"?."
2. The first question has been answered against the
Revenue by a Coordinate Bench decision in ITA
No.684/2015 between PR. COMMISSIONER OF
INCOME TAX Vs. M/s SUBEX LTD., disposed off on
01.10.2021. Similarly, the second question is also no
longer res integra in view of another decision of the very
same Bench rendered in ITA No.389/2014 c/w ITA
No.392/2014 between M/s COURSE5 INTELLIGENCE
PVT. LTD., VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, disposed
off on 01.09.2023. There is unanimity at the Bar in this
and therefore much need not be done in the case at hand.
NC: 2024:KHC:17601-DB
In light of the above, this appeal being unworthy of
merit is liable to be and accordingly dismissed, costs
having been made easy.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
Bsv
