Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE, IN
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ON THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2018
BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.78 OF 2010
BETWEEN:
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
CENTRAL CIRCLE,
C.R. BUILDING,
QUEENS ROAD,
BANGALORE.
THE INCOME TAX OFFICER
WARD-11(2),
C.R. BUILDING,
QUEENS ROAD,
BANGALORE. ... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI K.V. ARAVIND, ADVOCATE)
AND:
M/S. INTEL TECHNOLOGY INDIA PVT. LTD.
(SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO M/S. SOFTWARE
& SILICON SYSTEMS INDIA PVT. LTD.)
SRR2, SURVEY # 23-56P,
DEVARABEESANAHALLI,
OUTER RING ROAD,
VARTHUR HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
BANGALORE.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI SANDEEP HUILGOL, ADVOCATE, FOR SRI T. SURYANARAYANA)
* * *
THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW STATED THEREIN AND ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE, IN ITA NO.428/BANG/2009 DATED 25-9-2009 AND CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 11(2), BANGALORE.
THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T
This appeal was admitted on 2-8-2010 to consider the following substantial question of law:
Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that expenditure in Foreign Exchange in respect of professional and consultancy charges and traveling and conveyance need not be reduced while computing deduction u/s.10A of the Act, as held by the Commissioner u/s.263 of the Act?
Learned counsel on both side submit that the substantial question law is since covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL-III v. HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD. reported in (2018) 93 taxmann.com 33 (SC), wherein the substantial question of law was held in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
In view of the submission made, the substantial question of law is answered in favour of the assesee and against the Revenue. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed off.
SD/-
SD/- JUDGE
JUDGE
kvk