M/S WIPRO LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD I.T.A. NO.191 OF 2017 BETWEEN: M/S. WIPRO LIMITED 76R & 80P, DODDAKANNELLI SARJAPUR ROAD BENGALURU-560035 ... APPELLANT (BY SRI. S. GANESH, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. SANDEEP HUILGOL, ADV., FOR SRI. R.B. KRISHNA, ADV.,) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-12(5)

(NOW ASSESSED BY DCIT CIRCLE 7(1)(2)

2ND FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING

KORMANGALA, 80 FT ROAD

BANGALORE-560095. 2. DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL

7TH FLOOR, INCOME TAX OFFICE

BMTC BUILDING

KORMANGALA, 80 FT ROAD

BANGALORE-560095. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. E.I.SANMATHI, ADV.) - - -

2 THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T. ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 04.01.2017 PASSED IN IT(TP)A NO.1665/BANG/2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008- 09, ANNEXURE-D, PRAYING TO (I) FORMULATE OR REFORMULATE THE SUBSTNATIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE, (II) ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET AISD THE ORDER OF THE ITAT DATED 04.01.2017 IN IT(TP)A NO.1665/BANG/2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 (ANNEXURE-D), TO THE EXTENT TO WHICH SUCH OTHER IS AGAINST THE APPELLANT. (III) PASS SUCH OTHER SUITABLE ORDERS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS ITA COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) has been preferred by the assessee. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment year 2006-07. The appeal was admitted by a bench of this Court vide order dated 05.02.2013 on the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether the Tribunal was right in excluding the computer software sales made to STP units in India from "export turnover" for the purpose of computing deduction under section 10A of the Act, especially when the Honorable High Court has held in

3 favour of the Appellant in the earlier years? (2) Whether the tribunal was right in excluding the VAT/GST from export turnover and total turnover for the purpose of computing deduction under section 10A of the Act, especially when the Honorable High Court has held in favour of the Appellant in the earlier years? (3) Whether the Tribunal was right in completely ignoring the main ground of the Appellant regarding exclusion of expenses when computing relief under section 10A/10AA by mechanically following the Karnataka High Court decision in Tata Elxsi case? (4) Whether the tribunal was right in holding that income earned from sale of scrap, export incentive, rent received, interest income, gain on exchange rate fluctuations had to be excluded from income for the purpose of computing deduction under section 80IC, especially when the Honorable High Court has held in favour of

4 the Appellant in the earlier years? (5) Whether the tribunal was right in excluding the other income for the purpose of computing deduction under section 80IB/80IAB, especially when the Honorable High Court has held in favour of the Appellant in the earlier years? 2. We have already referred to the facts in detail while deciding I.T.A.No.315/2012. Therefore, for the sake of brevity we refrain from referring to the facts again in this appeal. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. Learned Senior counsel for the assessee submitted that substantial questions of law involved in this appeal are covered by decisions of this court in 'WIPRO LTD. VS. DCIT', 383 ITR 179 (KAR) and 'TATA COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX & ANOTHER VS. TATA ELXSI LTD.' 382 ITR 654 (KAR) as well as decision of the Supreme Court in

5 'COMMISSINOER OF INCOME-TAX VS. HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD.', 404 ITR 719 (SC). On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue has supported the order passed by the authorities under the Act and has submitted that the orders passed by the authorities under the Act do not call for any interference. 4. We have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. From perusal of paragraphs 147, 128 and 165 of the decision rendered by this court in WIPRO LTD. supra we find that the first four substantial questions of law framed in this appeal have already been answered in favour of the assessee. We have also carefully perused decision of this court in TATA ELXSI Ltd. as well as decision of the Supreme Court in HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD. supra and find that the fifth substantial question of law is also no longer res integra and has already been answered in favour of the assessee. Therefore, in view of aforesaid enunciation of

6 law, we answer the fifth substantial question of law in favour of the assessee. 5. Learned counsel for the revenue submits that all the remaining issues covered by decisions of this court in M/S WIPRO LTD. VS. DCIT, 383 ITR 179 (KAR) and 'COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX & ANOTHER VS. TATA ELXSI LTD.' 382 ITR 654 (KAR) are pending adjudication at the instance of the revenue before the Supreme Court. In view of aforesaid submission needless to state that the Assessing Officer shall decide the issues in accordance with the decision which may be rendered by the Supreme Court. In view of preceding analysis, the order dated 04.01.2017 pertaining to the Assessment Year 2008-09 in respect of substantial questions of law referred to supra is hereby quashed.

7 In the result, the appeal is disposed of in terms of the judgment passed by us today in I.T.A.No.464/2017. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE ss