CIT vs. ALCATEL LUCENT INDIA LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA - 501 / 2012HC Delhi11 September 20121 pages
For Petitioner: ABHISHEK MARATHA
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that no substantial question of law arises in this appeal. The Tribunal's order, which was under challenge, correctly followed its own larger Bench ruling in ITO V. Sak Soft Ltd. This ruling was further approved by the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd. The High Court explicitly noted that the principle laid down in Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd. had also been applied and followed by this Court in CIT v. Genpact India. Therefore, finding no infirmity in the Tribunal's order, the High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.

What were the facts?

The Revenue is aggrieved by an order of the Chennai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) dated June 2, 2011. The Tribunal had dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding its previous ruling. The core issue concerned the computation of eligible profit under Section 10A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Specifically, the dispute revolved around whether expenses excluded from export turnover could be deducted from total turnover for this calculation. The Tribunal's decision was based on a larger Bench ruling in ITO V. Sak Soft Ltd., which was subsequently approved by the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd. This High Court order notes that the Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd. ruling was also followed by this Court in CIT v. Genpact India.

What were the issues?

1. Whether expenses excluded from export turnover could be reduced from total turnover while computing eligible profit under Section 10A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (question of law). Assessee's Contention: The assessee (Alcatel Lucent India Ltd.) implicitly argued for the deduction of expenses from total turnover, as the Tribunal's order in their favor was upheld. The judgment does not explicitly record the assessee's arguments but refers to the Tribunal's order which followed precedents. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue contended that expenses excluded from export turnover should not be reduced from total turnover when computing eligible profit under Section 10A. The Revenue is aggrieved by the Tribunal's order which rejected this contention.

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 501/2012 . CIT ..... Appellant . Through: Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Sr. Standing Counsel with Ms. Anshul Sharma, Advocate. . versus . ALCATEL LUCENT INDIA LTD ..... Respondent . Through: Mr. Prakash Kumar, Advocate. . CORAM: . HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT . HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR . O R D E R . 11.09.2012 . . . The Revenue claims to be aggrieved by the order of the Chennai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (?Tribunal?, for short) dated 02.06.2011 in ITA No.523-524/Mads/2011. The Revenue?s appeal was rejected by the Tribunal. The question before the Tribunal was whether expenses excluded from the export turnover could be reduced from total turnover while computing the eligible profit under Section 10A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The impugned order followed its previous larger Bench ruling in ITO V. Sak Soft Ltd., 121 TT J 865; that decision of the Special Bench was approved by the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd., (2011) 330 ITR 175 (Bom.). This Court notices that the ruling in Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd. (supra) has been applied and followed by a judgment of this Court in CIT v. Genpact India, ITA No.1519/2010 decided on 16th November, 2011. As such, no substantial question of law arises. There is no infirmity in the order of the Tribunal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. . . . S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J . . . . . . . R.V.EASWAR, J . SEPTEMBER 11, 2012/hs . . . . . $ 3 .

More judgments on Section 10A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →