DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S CRMIT SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD., BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 312/BANG/2016Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 November 2016AY 2009-104 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order, as it was decided in line with the jurisdictional High Court's judgment. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s decision to exclude certain expenses from total turnover, similar to their exclusion from export turnover, was upheld.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order allowing incidental expenses to be reduced from both export turnover and total turnover. The assessee argued that the CIT(A) correctly followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Tata Elxsi Ltd. vs. ACIT.

What were the issues?

Whether incidental expenses, excluded from export turnover, should also be excluded from total turnover for the purpose of computing deduction under Section 10A.

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. S. Sivakumar, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri. M. K. Biju, JCIT, Shri. S. Sivakumar, Advocate
Hearing: 09.11.2016Pronounced: 11.11.2016

Per Sunil Kumar Yadav, Judicial Member

1.

This appeal is preferred by the revenue against the order of CIT(A) on solitary ground that CIT(A) is not correct in law and facts to allow the incidental expenses to be reduced from both export turnover and total turnover. In this regard, the learned counsel for the assessee had invited attention to the order of CIT(A) with the submission that CIT(A) has decided the issue relating to computation of deduction under section 10A of the act in the light of judgment of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Tata Elxsi Ltd., Vs. ACIT 349 ITR 98 and directed the AO to exclude certain expenses which were excluded from export turnover, from the total turnover also.

Therefore there is no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A).

2.

The learned DR simply placed reliance upon the order of the AO.

3.

Having carefully examined the order of the lower authorities, we find that CIT(A) has adjudicated the issue in the light of judgment of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Tata Elxsi Ltd., Vs. ACIT 349 ITR 98 (supra). Therefore, there is no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A). For the sake of reference, we extract the relevant para of the CIT(A) as under:

“

“

4.

Since CIT(A) has decided the issue in the light of judgment of Jurisdictional High Court, we find no infirmity therein.

5.

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

Pronounced in the open court on this 11th day of November, 2016.

More judgments on Section 10A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →