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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL, 2018
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL
AND
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV
I.T.A. No. 842/2017
BETWEEN
THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIT (A), 5TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROA D,KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU 560 095.
THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (OSD) CIRCLE-2(1)(1), 2ND FLOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA, BENGALURU 560 095.
... APPELLANTS
(By Sri K.V.ARAVIND & DILIP M., ADVS.)
AND
M/s CIBERSITES INDIA PVT. LTD., 5TH FLOOR TOWER "D" IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK, 4/1, BANNERGHATA ROAD, BENGALURU 560 054. PAN: AABCK 2997E.
... RESPONDENT
(By Sri CHYTHANYA K.K. & SHARATH S., ADVS.)
THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU, IN ITA NO.1241/BANG/2016 DATED 5.5.2017 CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER AND CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BENGALURU, AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, B.S.PATIL J, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) challenging the order dated 05.05.2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru in I.T.A.No.1241/Bang/2016 thereby dismissing the appeals filed by appellants herein.
The Tribunal has held that in terms of the order passed by a co-ordinate bench of this Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANOTHER VS. TATA ELXSI LIMITED – (2012) 349 ITR 98, expenses reduced from the export turnover had to be reduced from the total turnover also. Similarly, with regard to the other question as to whether set-off of losses incurred in the earlier years had to be deducted under Section 10A of the Act, the Tribunal has referred to and relied upon the judgment in
the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. YOKOGAWA INDIA LIMITED – (341) ITR 385. Indeed, this judgment rendered by this Court has been upheld by the Apex Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. YOKOGAWA INDIA LIMITED – (2017) 391 ITR 274.
In the light of the above, as both the questions involved in the present appeal have been covered by the judgments rendered by this Court and in fact the second question which is sought to be raised has been covered by the decision of the Apex Court, as fairly submitted at the bar by the learned counsel for both parties this matter deserves to be finally disposed of though it is listed for orders. Accordingly, we have taken up the matter for final disposal.
On consideration of the entire materials on record, we find that the twin points that are raised for consideration in this appeal are already covered by the judgments referred to herein above. Hence, no substantial question of law arises for consideration.
Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE