THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIT(A) vs. M/S INFOSYS LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA/356/2018HC KarnatakaKAHC01051135201822 November 2022Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. It held that the questions of law were already decided in favor of the assessee by previous judgments of the High Court and the Supreme Court.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed a decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) concerning Infosys Ltd. The appeal raised four substantial questions of law related to the tax treatment of rental income, foreign tax credit, state taxes paid outside India, and the re-computation of Section 10A benefits.

What were the issues?

Whether rental income and foreign/state taxes are eligible for benefits under Section 10A, and the correctness of re-computation of Section 10A benefits based on prior judicial precedents.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10A,Section 90

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

- 1 -

ITA No. 356 of 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.G.SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 356 OF 2018

BETWEEN :

1.

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIT(A) 5TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING 80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA BENGALURU-560 095.

2.

THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX RANGE-11, PRESENT ADDRESS ACIT, C-3(1)(1) 2ND FLOOR, BMTC BUIDLING 80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA BENGALURU-560 095. …APPELLANTS

(BY SHRI. K.V. ARAVIND, STANDING COUNSEL)

AND :

M/S INFOSYS LTD ELECTRONIC CITY HOSUR ROAD BENGALURU-560 100. …RESPONDENT

(BY SHRI. SURYANARAYANA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SMT. TANMAYEE RAJKUMAR, ADVOCATE) . . . .

Digitally signed by S P SUDHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

- 2 -

ITA No. 356 of 2018

THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED:10/11/2017 PASSED IN IT(TP)A NO.799/BANG/2015, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-2007, VIDE ANNEXURE-C, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW STATED THEREIN AND ETC.

THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, P.S.DINESH KUMAR J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Shri. K.V.Aravind, learned Advocate for the Revenue submitted that though this appeal has been admitted to consider three questions, this Court may consider all four questions raised in the appeal and they read as follows: 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in allowing claim of assessee that income derived from rental income from Infosys BPO Ltd. and BSNL Chennai Ltd as profits derived under Section 10A of the Income Tax Act, 1961)

2.

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in allowing claim for foreign tax credit under Section 90 of the Act in respect of income exempt under Section 10A of the Act by following the decision of this Hon'ble Court in case of Wipro Ltd?

- 3 -

ITA No. 356 of 2018

3.

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in law in allowing claim of credit for state taxes paid outside India by following the decision of this Hon'ble Court in case of Wipro Ltd?

4.

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in allowing in setting aside re-computation of Section 10A made by Assessing Authority by following the judgment of this Hon'ble Court in case of CIT Vs. Tata Elxsi Ltd?

2.

Shri. Suryanarayana, learned Senior Advocate for the assessee submitted that the first question is covered by the decision in ITA No.348/2018 decided today i.e., November 22, 2022. Questions No.2 and 3 are covered by the decision in Wipro Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle 1(3), Bangalore1 and Question No.4 is covered by the decision in Commissioner of Income- tax, Central-III Vs. HCL Technologies Ltd.2

3.

The said submission is not opposed by Shri. K.V. Aravind.

1 [2015] 62 taxmann.com 26 (Karnataka) 2 [2018] 93 taxmann.com 33 (SC)

- 4 -

ITA No. 356 of 2018

4.

In view of the above, this appeal must fail and it is accordingly dismissed.

5.

Questions of law are answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No costs.

Sd/- JUDGE

Sd/- JUDGE

SPS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14

More judgments on Section 10A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →