THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V. M/S WIPRO GE MEDICAL SYSTEMS PVT LTD

ITA/779/2009

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by the Commissioner of Income Tax and the Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax against M/s Wipro GE Medical Systems Ltd concerning the assessment year 1999-2000. The primary legal issue was whether the assessee was entitled to claim a deduction under section 10A of the Income Tax Act for a unit at Golden Enclave, Bangalore. The Tribunal had previously ruled in favor of the assessee, a decision which was supported by the High Court based on similar cases from the years 1997-98 and 1998-99. Additionally, the legality of the reopening of the assessment by the Assessing Officer was contested, which the court found to be procedurally incorrect.

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 700943 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 09-03-2015
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: The Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Wipro G E Medical System Ltd
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: S R ANURADHA
• Assessee Lawyers: K V ARAVIND
• Keywords: Assessment year 1999-2000; Deduction under Section 10A; Income Tax; Reopening of assessment
• Section: 10A; 260-A

Judgement Text

" 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF MARCH 2015 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE VINEET SARAN AND THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S SUJATHA ITA NO.779/2009 BETWEEN: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, C R BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3) C R BUILDING QUEENS ROAD .. APPELLANTS (BY SRI K V ARAVIND, ADV.) AND: M/S WIPRO GE MEDICAL SYSTEMS LTD PLOT NO.4, KADUGODI PLANTATION INDUSTRIAL AREA SADARAMANGALA BANGALORE. .. RESPONDENT (BY SMT S R ANURADHA, ADV.) THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260- A OF I.T.ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 10.07.2009 PASSED IN ITA NO.1032/BNG/2008 2 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000 PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ODER PASSED BY THE ITAT BANGALORE IN ITA NO.1032/BNG/2008 DATED 10.07.2009 AND CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, VINEET SARAN J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Heard Sri K V Aravind, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mrs S R Anuradha, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the records. 2. This appeal relates to the assessment year 1999-2000. Learned counsel for the parties have jointly stated that the issue in this appeal is identical to the one involved in ITA Nos.391 and 392/2008 relating to the assessment years 1997-98 and 1998- 99 which have been decided in favour of the assessee and against the revenue by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 10.06.2014. Learned counsel 3 for the parties have also stated that this appeal can also be decided in terms of the said judgment. 3. Accordingly, for the reasons given in the judgment and order dated 10.6.2014 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in ITA Nos.391/2008 c/w 392/2008 (The Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Wipro G E Medical System Ltd.), the first question which is that: (i) “The Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee would be entitled to claim deduction under section 10A of the Act in respect of the entire unit situated at Golden Enclave, Bangalore without examining the findings recorded by the Assessing Officer that admittedly the 3rd floor, Golden Enclave unit was granted permission earlier to 1.4.1994 and 2nd and 6th floor, Golden Enclave units were granted permission after 1.4.1994 and the eligibility under section 10 was available to those units commences prior to 1.4.1994” 4 is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 4. As regards the second question is concerned i.e., (ii) “Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the reopening of assessment is bad in law on the basis of the order passed by it for the assessment year 1997-98 and 1998-99 without independently examining the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening the assessment” in our view, the same is only academic in nature and need not be decided. 5. Appeal is accordingly dismissed to the extent as indicated above. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE brn "