Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL 2015
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE VINEET SARAN
AND
THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S SUJATHA
ITA NO.368/2014
Between:
Commissioner of Income Tax-III Central Revenue Buildings, Queens Road Bangalore-560 001.
The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 12(4) Bangalore. . . . Appellants
(By Sri E.I.Sanmathi, Adv.)
And:
M/s.Tavant Technologies Pvt. Ltd. CSRIE-11, No.12 Guava Garden 5th Block, Koramangala, Bangalore-560 096. . . . Respondent
This ITA is filed under Section 260-A of Income Tax Act, 1961, arising out of order dated 21.03.2014 passed in ITA No.883/Bang/2012, for the assessment year 2006-07 praying this Hon’ble Court to: 1. Decide the foregoing question of law and/or such other questions of law as may be formulated by the Hon’ble Court as deemed fit. 2. Set aside the appellate order dated 21.03.2014 passed by the ITAT, ‘A’ Bench, Bangalore, in appeal proceedings No.ITA No.883/Bang/2012 for Assessment Year 2006-07.
This appeal coming on for orders this day, Vineet Saran J., delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
The Revenue has preferred this appeal against granting relief to the Assessee. The substantial question of law raised in this appeal is as under: “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the reimbursement of specific expenses are to be excluded from total turnover as well as from export turnover for computation of
3 deduction u/s 10A whereas such exclusion is permitted to arrive at export turnover only as per the definitions given in Section 10A of the IT Act and total turnover has not been defined in the Section?”
This Court had an occasion to consider the substantial question of law, in the case of Commissioner Of Income-Tax And Another -vs- Tata Elxsi Ltd. reported in (2012) 349 ITR 98 (Karn), wherein, after referring to the various provisions of law and the judgments of various Courts, the said substantial question of law has been answered in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue. Accordingly, as the said substantial question of law is already answered by this Court, no case for admission is made out.
However, it is submitted that the Revenue has preferred an appeal to the Apex
4 Court against the judgment of this Court, which is pending consideration.
In the event of the Revenue succeeding in the appeal before the Apex Court then the Assessing Authority shall pass consequential order in terms of Section 260(1A) of the Income Tax Act 1961.
With the aforesaid observation, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
JT/-