M/S WIPRO LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD I.T.A. NO.316 OF 2012 BETWEEN: M/S. WIPRO LIMITED 76R & 80P, DODDAKANNELLI SARJAPURA ROAD BANGALORE-560035. .... APPELLANT (BY SRI. G. GANESH, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. R.B. KRISHNA, ADV.,) AND: THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-12(5), 14/3, 4TH FLOOR RASTROTHANA BHAVAN (OPP) RBI, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE-560001. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.,) - - - THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SEC. 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 15.06.2012 PASSED IN ITA NO.972/BANG/2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, ANNEXURE-E, PRAYING TO: (i) FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN.

2 (ii) ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE ITAT, BANGALORE IN ITA NO.972/BANG/2011 DATED 15.06.2012 (ANNEXURE-E), IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE & EQUITY. THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Mr.G.Ganesh, learned Senior counsel for Mr.R.B.Krishna, learned counsel for the appellant. Mr.K.V.Aravind, learned counsel for the revenue. 2. This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) has been filed by the assessee. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment Year 2007-08. The appeal was admitted by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 05.02.2013 on the following substantial questions of law: "1. Whether the Tribunal was right in directing that losses of a 10A/10AA unit, which are already set-off against other business income of the appellant, should be again carried forward and set-off against eligible profits of the same unit in a subsequent year? 2. Whether the Tribunal was right in excluding the computer software sales made to STP/SEZ

3 units in India from 'export turnover' for the purpose of computing deduction under Section 10A/10AA of the Act? 3. Whether the Tribunal was right in excluding the VAT / GST from export turnover and total turnover for the purpose of computing deduction under Section 10A/10AA of the Act? 4. Whether the Tribunal was right in concluding that 80% of the uplinking charges had to be excluded from the definition of turnover, when even the respondent had limited such exclusion to 5% of the telecommunication charges in earlier years? 5. Whether the Tribunal was right in concluding that purchase and sales of monitors constituted a trading activity and thus excludible from the profits of the Pondicherry unit for the purposes of computing deduction under Section 80-IB of the Act, when such monitors were part of the computers manufactured and sold by the units?" 3. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the assessee submits that this appeal may be

4 disposed of in terms of the judgment passed in ITA No.315/2012 dated 09.12.2020. 4. In view of the aforesaid submission, the appeal is disposed of in terms of the judgment passed in ITA No.315/2012 dated 09.12.2020. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE RV