Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
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.175 OF 2013 BETWEEN:
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD
BANGALORE.
THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
CIRCLE-12(1), RASHTROTHANA BHAVANA
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE. ... APPELLANTS (BY Mr. M. DILIP, A/W Mr. K.V. ARAVIND, ADVS.)
AND:
M/S. MIND TREE CONSULTING LTD., (FORMERLY MIND TREE CONSULTING PVT. LTD.,) GLOBAL VILLAGE, RVCE POST MYLASANDRA, MYSORE ROAD BANGALORE-560059. ... 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 31-10-2012 PASSED IN ITA NO.1347/BANG/2011, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 PRAYING TO:
I. FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN. II. ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 31-10-2012 IN ITA NO.1347/BANG/2011 PASSED BY THE ITAT, BENGALURU AND CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-12(1), 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 14.08.2013 on the following substantial questions of law: “1. Whether the Appellate Authorities were correct in holding that foreign currency, telecommunication and insurance charges excluded from export turnover has to be
excluded from total turnover also for the purpose of computing deduction under Section 10B of the Act contrary to the provisions of Section 10B of the Act?
Whether the Appellate Authorities were correct in not taking into consideration that Section 10B provides for exclusion of certain expenses only from export turnover and the same cannot be reduced/excluded from total turnover in the absence of specific provision and recorded a perverse finding?”
When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the revenue fairly submitted that the substantial questions of law have 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 questions of law framed by this Court in this
appeal are answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE
Sd/- JUDGE