THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S INTEL TECHNOLOGY INDIA PVT LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA/74/2010HC KarnatakaKAHC01012922201023 November 2018Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,K.NATARAJAN3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the expenditure in foreign exchange for professional and consultancy charges and traveling need not be reduced while computing deduction under Section 10A. This decision was based on a Supreme Court judgment.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed a decision of the ITAT that allowed the assessee to claim deduction under Section 10A without reducing foreign exchange expenditure on professional/consultancy charges and travel. The question was whether such expenditure should be reduced.

What were the issues?

Whether foreign exchange expenditure on professional/consultancy charges and travel must be reduced for Section 10A deduction. The court considered if the ITAT's interpretation aligned with Supreme Court precedents.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10A,Section 263,Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

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.74 OF 2010

BETWEEN:

1.

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

CENTRAL CIRCLE,

C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD,

BANGALORE.

2.

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.

NO.136, AIRPORT ROAD,

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.427/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 28-6-2010 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?

2.

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

More judgments on Section 10A

All 2,147 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →