Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
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 :
Commissioner of Income
Tax-III, C.R.Building,
Queens Road, Bangalore.
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.
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.
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