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 17TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
I.T.A. NO.247 OF 2013
BETWEEN:
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
LTU, JSS TOWERS, BSK III STAGE
BANGALORE.
THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
LTU, JSS TOWERS, BSK III STAGE
BANGALORE. ... APPELLANTS (BY Mr. M. DILIP, A/W Mr. K.V. ARAVIND, ADVS.)
AND:
M/S. MIND TREE LTD., (FORMERLY MIND TREE CONSULTING PRIVATE LTD.,) GLOBAL VILLAGE, RVCE POST MYLASANDRA, MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE.
... RESPONDENT (BY Mr. CHYTHANYA K.K., ADV.) - - -
THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T.ACT, 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 11-01-2013 PASSED IN ITA NO.480/BANG/2012, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 PRAYING TO:
I. FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN. II. ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE ITAT, BENGALURU IN
ITA NO.480/BANG/2012 DATED:11-01-2013 CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER AND CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU, BANGALORE.
THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Mr.K.V.Aravind, learned counsel along with Mr.M.Dilip, learned counsel for the revenue. Mr.Chythanya K.K., learned counsel for the assessee.
This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) has been preferred by the revenue which was admitted by a Bench of this Court on 03.07.2013 on the following substantial question of law: “Whether the Appellate Authorities were correct in holding that the expenditure incurred in foreign currency reduced from export turnover has to be reduced from total turnover for computing deduction under Section 10B of the Act in the
absence of any provisions in Section 10B of the Act which requires the concerned expenses to be reduced from total turnover also?”
When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the revenue fairly submitted that the substantial question of law has been answered against the revenue by the Supreme Court in ‘COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL-III Vs. HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD.’ (2018) 302 CTR 191 (SC).
In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law, the substantial question of law framed by this Court in this appeal is answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE
Sd/- JUDGE