COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. TECHNOTREE CONVERGENCE LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA - 302 / 2013HC Delhi10 July 20131 pages
For Petitioner: SANJEEV RAJPAL
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court held that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the appeal filed by the revenue. The Court noted that the ITAT had followed the decisions of the Karnataka High Court in ACIT v. Yokogava India Limited (2012) 341 ITR 385 and the Bombay High Court in Hindustan Lever Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. (2010) 325 ITR 102. Crucially, the High Court itself had previously noticed and approved the final findings of these two decisions in its own order in Commissioner of Income Tax v. TEI Technologies Private Limited (ITA Nos. 347/2011 and 2067/2010 decided on 27.8.2012). Therefore, in view of this established legal position, the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appellant) filed an appeal against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The respondent-assessee, Technotree Convergence Ltd, had claimed and was allowed a benefit under Section 10A of the Income Tax Act. The core of the dispute revolved around whether this benefit should be computed by excluding unabsorbed depreciation. The ITAT, in its impugned order, had followed the Karnataka High Court's decision in ACIT v. Yokogava India Limited and the Bombay High Court's decision in Hindustan Lever Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. These decisions were also noted and approved by the Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. TEI Technologies Private Limited.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the benefit under Section 10A of the Income Tax Act should be computed without taking into consideration unabsorbed depreciation (Question of law). Assessee's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee. However, the fact that the benefit under Section 10A was claimed and allowed implies the assessee's position was in favour of computing the benefit without considering unabsorbed depreciation. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue, through its appeal, contended that the benefit under Section 10A should not be computed without taking into consideration unabsorbed depreciation. The revenue's appeal was based on challenging the ITAT's decision on this point.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI . . . ITA 302/2013 . . . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant . Through: Mr.Sanjeev Rajpal, Advocate . . . versus . . . TECHNOTREE CONVERGENCE LTD ..... Respondent . Through: Mr.Counsel (appearance not . given) . . . CORAM: . HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA . HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA . O R D E R . 10.07.2013 . CM No.10165/2013 (for exemption) . Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. . CM No.10166/2013 (for condonation of delay) . Delay in re-filing the appeal is condoned as it is not objected to by the counsel for the respondent. . The application stands disposed of . ITA 302/2013 . The respondent- assessee had claimed and allowed benefit under Section 10A of the Income Tax Act. . The issue raised is that whether the said benefit should be computed without taking into consideration unabsorbed depreciation. The Tribunal by the impugned order has followed the decision of Karnataka High Court in ACIT v. Yokogava India Limited, (2012) 341 ITR 385 (Karnataka). Bombay High Court has also reached the same conclusion though for different reasons in Hindustan Lever Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr., (2010) 325 ITR 102 (Bombay). These two decisions were noticed and their final finding approved by this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. TEI Technologies Private Limited in ITA Nos. 347/2011 and 2067/2010 decided on 27.8.2012. . In view of the aforesaid position, no substantial question of law arises for consideration and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. . . . . . . . SANJIV KHANNA, J. . . . . . SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. . JULY 10, 2013 . sv . . . $ 4 .

More judgments on Section 10A

All 2,147 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →