PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S QUALITY ENGG & SOFTWARE TECH PVT LTD

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE 2016

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.SREENIVASE GOWDA ITA NO.149/2016 BETWEEN:

…APPELLANTS (BY SRI.E.I.SANMATHI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

M/S. QUALITY ENGG & SOFTWARE TECH PVT LTD NO 55, QUEST TOWERS, WHITEFIELD MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE – 560048

...RESPONDENT

2 THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED:04/09/2015 PASSED IN IT(TP)A NO.642/BANG/2013, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 PRAYING 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 AND SET ASIDE THE COMMON APPELLATE ORDER DATED:04/09/2015 PASSED BY THE ITAT, 'B' BENCH, BENGALURU, IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS NO. IT(TP)A NO. 642/BANG/2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008- 2009 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 ADMISSION THIS DAY, JAYANT PATEL J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

The appellants-Revenue has preferred the present appeal by raising the following substantial question of law:

"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law by directing the Assessing Officer to reduce the

3 expenditure incurred in foreign currency, both from the Export turnover as well as the Total turnover for the purpose of computation of deduction under section 10A of the Act without appreciating the fact that the statute allows exclusion of such expenditure only from the Export Turnover by way of specific definition of Export Turnover as envisaged by sub-clause (4) of Explanation 2 below sub-section 8 of section 10A. On the other hand, there is no specific provision in section 10A warranting exclusion of above expenses from Total Turnover also"?

4 3. When the matter is already covered by the above referred decision of this Court, we do not find that any substantial question of law would arise for consideration.

Sd/- JUDGE

Sd/- JUDGE

JT/-