Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. 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.107/2018
BETWEEN : 1. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6 BMTC COMPLEX KORAMANGALA BENGALURU
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 6(1)(1) BENGALURU.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI E.I.SANMATHI, ADV.)
AND : M/s. SASKEN NETWORK ENGINEERING LIMITED NO.139/25 AMARJYOTHI LAYOUT RING ROAD, DOMLUR BENGALURU -560 071 PAN:AAICS 4405 Q
…RESPONDENT *****
THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED: 24.08.2017 PASSED IN ITA NO. 1894/BANG/2016, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-2012, PRAYING THIS
Date of Judgment 30-08-2018, ITA No.107/2018 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-6 & Another Vs. M/s.Sasken Network Engineering Limited
2/5
HON'BLE COURT TO: DECIDE THE FOREGOING QUESTION OF LAW AND/OR SUCH OTHER QUESTIONS OF LAW AS MAY BE FORMULATED BY THE HON'BLE COURT AS DEEMED FIT. (B) SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED: 24.08.2017 PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 'C' BENCH, BANGALORE, IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS NO. ITA NO. 1894/BANG/2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-2012, 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.
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 ‘C’, Bangalore, in IT[TP]A No.1894/Bang/2016 dated 24.08.2017, relating to the Assessment Year 2011-12.
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, the Tribunal is correct in excluding items from the total turnover which are excluded from the Export Turnover while computing the deduction under Section 10A in view of the fact that the term “Total Turnover is not defined in the
Date of Judgment 30-08-2018, ITA No.107/2018 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-6 & Another Vs. M/s.Sasken Network Engineering Limited
3/5
Section 10A of the Act and the said interpretation was relying on definition of total turnover as envisaged under Section 80HHC of the Act? ”
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).
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 ordinary meaning is to be in conformity with the context in which it is used. Hence, what is excluded
Date of Judgment 30-08-2018, ITA No.107/2018 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-6 & Another Vs. M/s.Sasken Network Engineering Limited
4/5
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.
XXXXXX
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.
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”.
Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the Appellants-Revenue, we are therefore of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises in the present
Date of Judgment 30-08-2018, ITA No.107/2018 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-6 & Another Vs. M/s.Sasken Network Engineering Limited
5/5
case. The Appeal filed by the Appellants-Revenue is liable to be dismissed and it is dismissed accordingly. No costs.
Copy of this Order be sent to the Respondent- Assessee forthwith.
Sd/- JUDGE
Sd/- JUDGE