THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIT (A) vs. M/S. INFOSYS BPO LTD.,

PDF · subscribers
ITA/27/2016HC KarnatakaKAHC01017782201622 March 2017Bench: JAYANT PATEL,N.K.SUDHINDRARAO5 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that both substantial questions of law were already covered by previous decisions of the same court and the Supreme Court. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as they did not present new substantial questions of law.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against an ITAT order concerning assessment years 2005-2006 for Infosys BPO Ltd. The appeals raised questions regarding the treatment of expenses from export turnover and the set-off of earlier year losses before Section 10A deductions.

What were the issues?

Whether expenses reduced from export turnover should also be reduced from total turnover, and whether losses of earlier years can be set off before Section 10A deduction.

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(3)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.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH 2017 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. SUDHINDRARAO I.T.A. No.26/2016 c/w I.T.A. No.27/2016

In ITA No.26/2016

BETWEEN

1.

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF

INCOME-TAX, CIT(A)

5TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING

80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA

BANGALORE – 560 095.

2.

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

OF INCOME –TAX

CIRCLE-11(1), 2ND FLOOR

BMTC BUILDING

80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA

BANGALORE – 560 095. …APPELLANTS (By Sri ARAVIND K.V, ADVOCATE)

AND

M/s. INFOSYS BPO LTD., ELECTRONIC CITY, HOSUR ROAD BANGALORE – 560 030. PAN:AACCP 4478N

…RESPONDENT

THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 30/07/2015 PASSED IN ITA No.1265/BANG/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-2006 PRAYING TO (1) FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE. (2) ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ITAT, BANGALORE IN ITA No.1265/BANG/2014 DATED 30/07/2015 AND CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(4), BENGALURU.

In ITA No.27/2016

BETWEEN

1.

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF

INCOME-TAX, CIT(A)

5TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING

80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA

BANGALORE – 560 095.

2.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

OF INCOME –TAX

CIRCLE-11(1), 2ND FLOOR

BMTC BUILDING

80 FEET ROAD KORMANGALA

BANGALORE – 560 095. …APPELLANTS

(By Sri ARAVIND K.V, ADVOCATE)

AND

M/s. INFOSYS BPO LTD., ELECTRONIC CITY, HOSUR ROAD BANGALORE – 560 030. PAN:AACCP 4478N

…RESPONDENT

THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 30/07/2015 PASSED IN ITA No.1320/BANG/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-2006 PRAYING TO (1) FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE. (2) ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE ITAT, BENGALURU IN ITA No.1320/BANG/2014 DATED 30/07/2015 CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER AND CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(4), BENGALURU.

THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JAYANT PATEL J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

The Revenue has preferred the present appeals by raising the following substantial question of law; “1. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the expenses reduced from the export turnover has to be reduced from the total turnover also since no provision under section 10A provides for exclusion of such expenses from the total turnover?

2.

Whether the Tribunal was correct in upholding the decision of the appellate Commissioner in not allowing set-off of losses of earlier years before deduction under section 10A of the Act?”

2.

We have heard Mr. Aravind K V, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue.

3.

It appears that so far as question No.1 is concerned, the matter is already covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax and another vs. Tata Elxsi Limited reported in 349 ITR 98. Hence, the said question would no more remain as a substantial question of law.

4.

So for as the above referred question No.2 is concerned, the matter is covered by the earlier decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax and another vs. Yokogawa India Limited reported in 341 ITR 385. Further, the matter was carried by the Revenue before the Apex Court against the above referred decision of this Court and the Apex Court vide its order in the case of Yokogawa India Limited reported in 391 ITR 274 (SC) has disposed of the appeals.

5.

Under the circumstances, question No.2 also would not remain as a substantial question of law.

Hence, the appeals are dismissed.

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 →