PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. M/S TARGET CORPORATION

PDF · subscribers
ITA/943/2017HC KarnatakaKAHC01050867201730 August 2018Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI5 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that no substantial question of law arises in the present case. The court found the issue to be covered by the Supreme Court's decision in HCL Technologies Ltd., which supported the assessee's position.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against an ITAT order concerning the Assessment Year 2007-08. The appeal questioned the Tribunal's inclusion of expenditure incurred in foreign currency, relying on a High Court decision that was under appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether expenditure incurred in foreign currency should be included in total turnover for Section 10A computation, even if the relied-upon High Court decision was not final.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10A,Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)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.

1/5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST 2018

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI

AND

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA

I.T.A. No.943/2017

BETWEEN : 1. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 C.R. BUILDINGS, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001.

2.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4(1)(1) BANGALORE.

...APPELLANTS

(BY SRI E.I.SANMATHI, ADV.)

AND : M/s. TARGET CORPORATION INDIA PVT LTD., EMBASSY BUSSINESS PARK SEZ UNIT, OUTER RING ROAD, BANGALORE-560045. PAN : AAECA8990NA

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI ANKUR PAI, ADV.) *****

THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 09.06.2017 PASSED IN IT[TP]A No.1562/BANG/2012, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-2008, PRAYING TO: DECIDE THE FOREGOING QUESTION OF LAW AND/OR SUCH OTHER QUESTIONS OF LAW AS MAY BE FORMULATED BY

Date of Judgment 30-08-2018, ITA No.943/2017 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-7 & Another Vs. M/s Target Corporation India Pvt. Ltd.,

2/5

THE HON'BLE COURT AS DEEMED FIT. (a) SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED: 09.06.2017 PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 'B' BENCH, BANGALORE, IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS NO. IT[TP]A No.1562/BANG/2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007- 2008 AS SOUGHT FOR IN THIS APPEAL; AND TO GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF AS DEEMED FIT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, S. SUJATHA, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

J U D G M E N T

Mr. E.I.Sanmathi, Adv. for Appellants – Revenue. Mr.Ankur Pai, Adv. for Respondent-Assessee

This Appeal is filed by the Revenue purportedly raising substantial questions of law arising from the Order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench ‘B’, Bangalore, in IT[TP]A No.1562/Bang/2012 dated 09.06.2017, relating to the Assessment Year 2007-08.

2.

The substantial question of law framed by the Revenue in the Memorandum of Appeal is as under: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, that the Tribunal is right in law in including the expenditure incurred in foreign currency by relying upon the decision of this Hon’ble High Court in the cases of CIT v/s Tata Elaxy even when the said decision has not reached

Date of Judgment 30-08-2018, ITA No.943/2017 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-7 & Another Vs. M/s Target Corporation India Pvt. Ltd.,

3/5

finality and no such way of re-computation as directed by the Tribunal is provided under the provisions of IT Act and when the Revenue has preferred appeal before this Hon’ble Court against its original order?”

3.

The issue is covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Central – III vs. HCL Technologies Ltd., [2018] 93 Taxmann.com 33(SC).

4.

The relevant portion of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of HCL Technologies Ltd. (supra), is quoted below for ready reference:- “17. The similar nature of controversy, akin this case, arose before the Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Tata Elxsi Ltd. [2012] 204 Taxman 321/17/taxman.com 100/349 ITR 98. The issue before the Karnataka High Court was whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that while computing relief under Section 10A of the IT Act, the amount of communication expenses should be excluded from the total turnover if the same are reduced from the export turnover? While giving the answer to the issue, the High Court, inter-alia, held that when a particular word is not defined by the legislature and an ordinary meaning is to be attributed to it, the said

Date of Judgment 30-08-2018, ITA No.943/2017 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-7 & Another Vs. M/s Target Corporation India Pvt. Ltd.,

4/5

ordinary meaning is to be in conformity with the context in which it is used. Hence, what is excluded from ‘export turnover’ must also be excluded from ‘total turnover’, since one of the components of ‘total turnover’ is export turnover. Any other interpretation would run counter to the legislative intent and would be impermissible.

18.

XXXXXX

19.

In the instant case, if the deductions on freight, telecommunication and insurance attributable to the delivery of computer software under Section 10A of the IT Act are allowed only in Export Turnover but not from the Total Turnover then, it would give rise to inadvertent, unlawful, meaningless and illogical result which would cause grave injustice to the Respondent which could have never been the intention of the legislature.

20.

Even in common parlance, when the object of the formula is to arrive at the profit from export business, expenses excluded from export turnover have to be excluded from total turnover also. Otherwise, any other interpretation makes the formula unworkable and absurd. Hence, we are satisfied that such deduction shall be allowed from the total turnover in same proportion as well”.

Date of Judgment 30-08-2018, ITA No.943/2017 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-7 & Another Vs. M/s Target Corporation India Pvt. Ltd.,

5/5

5.

Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties, we are therefore of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises in the present case. The Appeal filed by the Appellants-Revenue is liable to be dismissed and it is dismissed accordingly. No costs.

Sd/- JUDGE

Sd/- JUDGE

More judgments on Section 10A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →