Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH 2015
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEET SARAN
AND
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA
ITA NO 432 OF 2014
BETWEEN
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX C R BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE.
THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-12(1) RASHTROTHANA BHAVAN NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE .
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. K V ARAVIND, ADV. )
AND
M/S MASCOT SYSTEMS LTD. (NOW M/S IGATE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD., ) FLAT NO.158-162(P), EPIP 2ND PHASE, NEAR SAP LAB WHITEFIELD, BANGALORE.
... RESPONDENT
THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED:09/05/2014 PASSED
IN ITA NO.2291/BANG/2004, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001- 2002.
THIS ITA 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 and in law, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the expenses incurred in foreign exchange on foreign travel of the Assessee’s employees deducted from computing export turnover under Section 10A of the Act should also be reduced for computing total turnover when arriving at deduction under Section 10A of the Act and moreover when the decision relied upon by the Tribunal has not reached finality?”
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 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 TL