DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE vs. M/S SUBEX LTD, BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 416/BANG/2017Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 October 2017AY 2007-083 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that subordinate authorities are bound to follow the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court as long as it holds the field. Therefore, the order of the CIT(Appeals) following the High Court's decision in Tata Elxsi Ltd. was confirmed.

What were the facts?

The revenue appealed against the CIT(Appeals) order which directed the AO to reduce expenses incurred in foreign currency from both export and total turnover for Section 10A deduction. The revenue argued that such expenses should only be excluded from export turnover as per the Act.

What were the issues?

Whether expenses incurred in foreign currency should be reduced from both export and total turnover for calculating deduction under Section 10A, and whether the jurisdictional High Court's judgment should be followed despite an SLP being filed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)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.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV & SHRI A.K. GARODIA

For Appellant: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Addl. CIT(DR)
For Respondent: Shri Tata Krishnan, Advocate
Hearing: 12.10.2017Pronounced: 31.10.2017

Date of hearing : 12.10.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 31.10.2017 O R D E R

Per Sunil Kumar Yadav, Judicial Member

1.

This is an appeal preferred by the revenue against the order of CIT(Appeals) inter alia on the following grounds:-

“1. The order of the CIT (Appeals) is opposed to law and the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. On the facts and in circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in citing the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble High Court in the case of CIT Vs Tata Elxsi Ltd. reported in 349 ITR 98 and directing the AO to reduce expenses incurred in foreign currency, both from Export Turnover as well as from Total Turnover for the purpose of computation of deduction u/s 10A, without appreciating the fact that the statute allows exclusion of such expenditure ONLY from Export Turnover by way of a specific definition for Export Turnover in the Act. On the other hand, there is no specific provision in Section 10A warranting exclusion of the above expenses from the Total Turnover also.

3. For these and such other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, it is humbly prayed that the order of the CIT(A) in so far as it relates to the above grounds may be reversed and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.

4. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any of the grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal.”

2.

The ld. DR in support of the grounds raised has submitted that since the SLP has been filed in the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Tata Elxsi Ltd., 349 ITR 98 should not be followed. The ld. counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, has contended that the operation of the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court has not been stayed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, therefore, the Tribunal is supposed to follow the judgment of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court.

3.

Having carefully examined the orders of the lower authorities, we find that so long as the judgment of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court holds the field, all subordinate authorities are supposed to follow the same. Therefore, we find no infirmity in the order of CIT(Appeals), who has adjudicated the issue following the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Tata Elxsi Ltd. (supra). We accordingly confirm his order.

4.

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed.

Pronounced in the open court on this 31st day of October, 2017.

Sd/- Sd/-

( A.K. GARODIA ) ( SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) Accountant Member Judicial Member Bangalore, Dated, the 31st October, 2017.

More judgments on Section 10A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →