COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S. SECON PVT. LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA/64/2013HC KarnatakaKAHC01014245201324 April 2013Bench: B.MANOHAR,N.KUMAR3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that since the Tribunal's order followed a previous judgment of the same court, there was no substantial question of law to consider. The appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue challenged a Tribunal order that upheld the exclusion of design and project expenses from both export and total turnover for calculating Section 10A deduction. This exclusion was based on a High Court judgment in a similar case.

What were the issues?

Whether design and project expenses should be excluded from export and total turnover for Section 10A deduction. Whether substantial questions of law arise when a Tribunal follows a High Court precedent.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10A,Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 24th DAY OF APRIL 2013

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.KUMAR AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.MANOHAR

I.T.A. NOS.64-65/2013

BETWEEN :

1.

Commissioner of Income

Tax-III, C.R.Building,

Queens Road, Bangalore.

2.

Joint Commissioner of

Income-tax (ODS), Circle 12(3), Bangalore. ...APPELLANTS

(By Sri. E.I.Sanmathi, Adv.)

AND :

M/s. Secon Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.147, 7B Road, EPIP, whitefield, Bangalore – 560 062. …RESPONDENT

. . . .

These I.T.As. are filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 praying to (i) formulate the substantial questions of law stated therein, (ii) set-aside the appellate order dated 27.09.2012 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, `A’ Bench, Bangalore in I.T.A. No.188/Bang/2012 and C.O. No.59/Bang/2012.

These I.T.As. coming on for admission, this day, N.Kumar J., delivered the following:

- 2 -

JUDGMENT

These appeals are preferred by the Revenue challenging the order dated 27.09.2012 passed by the Tribunal, which upheld the order of the Appellate Authority, which had excluded the design and project expenses both from the export turnover as well as from the total turnover while calculating the deduction under Section 10A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

2.

In coming to the said conclusion, the Tribunal had followed the judgment of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax and another V/s. Tata Elxsi Ltd., and others reported in (2012) 204) TAXMAN 321 which has been quoted extensively in the order. It is against the said order, the present appeal is filed.

3.

As the order of the Tribunal is based on the law declared by this Court, we do not see any justification to entertain these appeals. Therefore, no substantial question of law arises for consideration as the question

- 3 -

has already been answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. There is no merit in these appeals. Appeals are dismissed.

Sd/- JUDGE

Sd/- JUDGE

SPS

More judgments on Section 10A

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

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →