ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S LOGIC PVT. LTD., BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 690/BANG/2015Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 July 2017AY 2010-113 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 confirmed the DRP's order, holding that if expenses are excluded from export turnover, they should also be excluded from total turnover. This was based on the jurisdictional High Court's decision in the Tata Elxsi case.

What were the facts?

The revenue appealed against the DRP's direction to exclude foreign currency expenditure from both export and total turnover for Section 10A/10AA deduction. The DRP followed a Karnataka High Court ruling, which the revenue had challenged via SLP.

What were the issues?

Whether expenditure incurred in foreign currency should be excluded from both export turnover and total turnover for computing deduction under Section 10A and 10AA.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10A,Section 10AA

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.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV & SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Advocate
For Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT)-2, Bengaluru
Hearing: 06.07.2017Pronounced: 07.07.2017

Date of hearing : 06.07.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 07.07.2017 O R D E R

Per Sunil Kumar Yadav, Judicial Member

1.

This appeal is preferred by the revenue against the directions of the DRP dated 25.02.2015 for the assessment year 2010-11 inter alia on the following grounds:-

“1. The directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel are opposed to law and facts of the case.

IT(TP)A No.690/Bang/2015 Page 2 of 3

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Dispute Resolution Panel erred in law in directing the AO to exclude the expenditure incurred in foreign currency both from the export turnover as well as from total turnover for the purpose of computation of deduction u/s 10A and 10AA, without appreciating the fact that the statute allows exclusion of such expenditure only from export turnover by way of specific definition of export turnover as envisaged by Sub-clause (4) of Explanation 2 below Subsection (8) of Section 10A and the total turnover has not been defined in this Section.

3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Dispute Resolution Panel erred in directing the AO to compute deduction u/s 10A & 10AA in the above manner by placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of M/s Tata Elxsi Ltd., which has not become final since the same has not been accepted by the Department and SLPs are pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.”

2.

The only issue involved in this appeal is whether the Dispute Resolution Panel erred in law in directing the AO to exclude the expenditure incurred in foreign currency both from the export turnover as well as from total turnover for the purpose of computation of deduction u/s 10A and 10AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] following the judgment of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Tata Elxsi Limited 349 ITR 98 against which judgment the SLPs filed by the department are pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

3.

This issue is covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Tata Elxsi Ltd., 341 ITR 98 (Kar) in which it has been held that if certain expenses are excluded from the export turnover, the same should also be excluded from the total turnover. Since the DRP

IT(TP)A No.690/Bang/2015 Page 3 of 3 has decided the issue as per judgment of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Tata Elxsi Ltd. (supra), we find no infirmity in the order of DRP. Accordingly, the order of the DRP is confirmed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.

Pronounced in the open court on this 7th day of July, 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 →