COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SEIMENS INFORMATIONPROCESSING SERVICES PVT LT

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2020

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.379 OF 2012

BETWEEN:

AND:

M/S SEIMENS INFORMATION PROCESSING SERVICES PVT. LTD., OZONE MANAY TECH PARK, BLOCK -A, 6TH FLOOR,

2 G.B.PALYA, HOSUR ROAD, BENGLURU – 560 068.

... RESPONDENT (BY SRI T. SURYANARAYANA, ADV.)

THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED: 29.06.2012 PASSED IN ITA NO.1063/BANG/2011, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-2007 PRAYING TO:

i. FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN.

ii. ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE ITAT, BENGALURU IN ITA NO. NO.1063/BANG/2011, DATED 29.06.2012 AND ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) – III, BENGALURU DATED 10.08.2011 IN APPEAL NO.ITA NO.196/ C-12(3)/CIT(A) – III /BNG/2009-10.

THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., MADE THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT

Sri Jeevan J. Neeralgi, learned counsel for the appellants – Revenue.

3 Sri T. Suryanarayana, learned counsel for the respondent – assessee.

This appeal is filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Revenue, being aggrieved by the order dated 29.06.2012 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru, in ITA.No.1063/Bang/2011.

“(i). Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in holding that telecommunication charges amounting to Rs.3,02,49,251 and travel expenses amounting to Rs.1,13,52,547 are to be excluded from total turnover as well for computation of deduction under Section 10A whereas such exclusion is permitted to arrive at export turnover only as per

4 the definitions given in Section 10A of the IT Act and total turnover has not been defined in the Section?

(ii). Whether, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the deduction under Section 10A should be computed in the above manner following the judgment of jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Tata Elxsi Ltd., which has not become final since the same has not been accepted by the Department and SLP is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court?”

5 4. The aforesaid submission is not disputed by the learned counsel for the Revenue.

Sd/- JUDGE

Sd/- JUDGE nvj CT:MJ