THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T vs. M/S.VENTURE LIGHTING INDIA

T.C.A.Nos.63 & 64 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 30.08.2019 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal Nos.63 & 64 of 2016 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. ...Appellant in both appeals -vs- M/s.Venture Lighting India Limited, D-5, Phase-II, MEPZ Tambaram, Chennai – 600 045. ...Respondent in both appeals Appeala under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against the common order dated 23.05.2014 on the file of the Income- tax Appellate Tribunal 'A' Bench, Chennai in I.T.A.Nos.64 & 65/Mds/2014 for the assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07 respectively. For Appellant : Mrs.R.Hemalatha [in both appeals] Senior Standing Counsel For Respondent : Mr.A.S.Sriraman for [in both appeals] Mr.S.Sridhar ****** 1/4 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.Nos.63 & 64 of 2016 COMMON JUDGMENT (Delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam, J.) These appeals filed by the appellant/Revenue under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, are directed against the common order dated 23.05.2014 on the file of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal 'A' Bench, Chennai in I.T.A.Nos.64 & 65/Mds/2014 for the assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07 respectively. 2.The Revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration:- “(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in directing the assessing officer to recompute the income in the light of the decision of the Special Bench in the case of Sak Soft by excluding the freight and insurance expenses both Export turnover and also from the Total turnover while computing deduction under Section 10A? and (ii) Is not the finding of the Tribunal bad, especially when explanation 2(iv) to Section 10A defines the word 'Export Turnover' whereby it had been specifically stated that it would not include freight telecommunication charges, insurance attributable to the delivery of the articles or things or computer software outside India or expenses if any incurred in foreign exchange while providing information technology enable services outside India?” 2/4 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.Nos.63 & 64 of 2016 3.Heard Mrs.R.Hemalatha, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant/Revenue; and Mr.A.S.Sriraman, learned counsel for Mr.S.Sridhar, learned counsel for the respondent/assessee. 4.It is not disputed by the Revenue, rather agreed by the Revenue that the substantial questions of law framed in these appeals have been answered in favour of the assessee in the assessee's own case in M/s.ISOFT R&D Pvt. Ltd., vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai in T.C.A.No.1248 of 2008, dated 08.10.2018 wherein, we considered identical issue and answered the same in favour of the assessee, following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. HCL Technologies Ltd., (2018) 404 ITR 0719. 5.Following the above decision, these tax case appeals are dismissed and the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No costs.

(T.S.S., J.) (V.B.S., J.) 30.08.2019 Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non-Speaking Order mp 3/4 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.Nos.63 & 64 of 2016 T.S.Sivagnanam, J. and V.Bhavani Subbaroyan, J. mp To The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal 'A' Bench, Chennai. T.C.A.Nos.63 & 64 of 2016 30.08.2019 4/4 http://www.judis.nic.in