PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S SUBEX LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA/905/2017HC KarnatakaKAHC01050292201716 August 2018Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI6 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that expenditure excluded from export turnover must also be excluded from total turnover to avoid an illogical and unjust result. This interpretation aligns with the legislative intent of the formula under Section 10A.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against an ITAT order concerning the Assessment Year 2009-10. The core issue was whether expenditure excluded from export turnover should also be excluded from total turnover for Section 10A computation.

What were the issues?

Whether expenditure excluded from export turnover should also be excluded from total turnover when computing relief under Section 10A of the Income Tax Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10A

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.

1/6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF AUGUST 2018

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI

AND

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA

I.T.A. No.905/2017

BETWEEN :

1.

Pr. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI

BMTC COMPLEX, KORMANGALA,

BANGALORE.

2.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-12(3), 14/3, 4TH FLOOR,

RASTROTHANA BHAVAN (OPP. RBI)

NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,

BENGALURU.

... APPELLANTS

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

AND:

M/s SUBEX LTD., UNIT-I, ADARSH TECH PARK, OUTER RING ROAD DEVARABISANAHALLI, OUTER RING ROAD BANGALORE-560037.

... RESPONDENT

THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 31.05.2017 PASSED IN IT(TP)A NO.239/BANG/2014, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-2010 PRAYING TO FOREGOING THE QUESTION OF LAW AND/OR SUCH OTHER QUESTIONS OF LAW AS MAY BE FORMULATED BY THE HON’BLE COURT AS 2/6

DEEMED FIT AND SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER IMPUGNED AND ETC.

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

J U D G M E N T

Mr. E.I. Sanmathi, Adv. for Appellant – Revenue

This Appeal is filed by the Revenue purportedly raising substantial question of law arising from the Order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘ B' Bench, Bangalore, in IT[TP]A No.239/Bang/2014 dated 31.05.2017, relating to the Assessment Year 2009-10.

2.

The proposed 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 right in setting aside the computation made by the assessing authority in respect of section 10-Appellate Authority by holding that 3/6

if the expenditure on travel is excluded from both export turnover and total turnover, the effect remains the same, without appreciating the fact that the statute allows exclusion of such expenditure expressly only from the export turnover by way of specific definition as envisaged in the Act and there is no specific provision in section 10-A warranting exclusion of the above expenses from the total turnover also ?”

3.

Learned counsel for the Appellants-Revenue submits that in so far as the aforesaid substantial question of law is concerned, the same is covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Apex 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 4/6

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 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 5/6

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”.

4.

Having heard the learned counsel for the Appellants-Revenue, we are therefore of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises in the present case. The appeal filed by the Appellant-Revenue is 6/6

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

ln.

Similar judgments

Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.

More judgments on Section 10A

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

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →