COMMISSIONER vs. M/S SYMPHONY SERVICES CORPORATION

PDF · subscribers
ITA/187/2013HC KarnatakaKAHC01023591201328 June 2016Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the substantial questions of law raised by the Revenue were covered by its previous decision in CIT vs. Tata Elxsi Ltd. Therefore, no substantial question of law arose for consideration.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against an ITAT order concerning the exclusion of certain expenses from total and export turnover for Section 10A deduction. The expenses included telecommunication, foreign travel, consultancy fees, and franchise commission.

What were the issues?

Whether certain reimbursements are to be excluded from total and export turnover for Section 10A deduction. Whether the ITAT's decision, following a jurisdictional High Court judgment, was correct despite pending SLPs.

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(1)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 28TH DAY OF JUNE, 2016

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL

AND

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

ITA NO.187 OF 2013

BETWEEN

1.

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

BANGALORE –III, BANGALORE.

2.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

CIRCLE 12 (3), BANGALORE. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI.E.I.SANMATHI, ADV.)

AND

M/S.SYMPHONY SERVICES CORPORATION (I) PRIVATE LIMITED NO.13/1, KADUBEESANAHALLI VILLAGE OUTER RING ROAD, VARTHUR HOBLI BANGALORE – 560 103.

...RESPONDENT (BY SRI. P.DINESHA, ADV.FOR SRI.K.R.VASUDEVAN, ADV.)

THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW AND/OR TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE ITAT, BANGALORE BEARING ITA NO. 390/BANG/2012 DATED 04/12/2012 AND ORDER OF CIT (APPEALS)-III, BANGALORE DATED 12.12.11

IN APPEAL NO.195/C- 12(3)/CIT(A)-III/BNG/2010-11.

THIS ITA COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, JAYANT PATEL J. DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

The appellants-Revenue have preferred this present appeal by raising the following substantial questions of law:

“i. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in holding that the reimbursement of expenditure of Rs.4,13,21,269/- towards telecommunication expenses, Rs.3,47,32,126/- towards foreign travel expenses incurred in foreign currency, consultancy fees of Rs.4,82,856/- and franchise commission of Rs.43,73,960/- are to be excluded from total turnover as well as from export turnover for computation of deduction under section 10A whereas such exclusion is permitted to arrive at export turnover only as per the definitions given in section 10A of the IT Act and total turnover has not been defined in the section?

ii. Whether, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the deduction under section 10A should be computed in the above manner following the judgment of jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Tata Elxsi Ltd. which has not become final since the same has not been accepted by the Department and SLPs filed by the revenue

on this issue are pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court?”

2.

Mr.E.I.Sanmathi, learned counsel appearing for the appellants states that Mr.Thirumalesh, whose name is mentioned in the Board as learned counsel for the appellants is no more in the panel of the Income Tax Department and he has received authorization. He further states that his appearance shall be filed within one week from today.

3.

Under these circumstances, we find it appropriate to hear Mr.E.I.Sanmathi, learned counsel for the appellants.

4.

We have heard Mr.P.Dinesha, Advocate, appearing on behalf of Mr.K.R.Vasudevan, Advocate for the respondent.

5.

Learned counsel for the appellants-Revenue fairly concedes that both the questions are covered by the decision of this Court in the case Commissioner of

Income Tax & Another –vs- Tata Elxsi Ltd. & Ors. reported in (2012) 349 ITR 98 (Karn).

6.

In our view, when the questions are already covered by the decision of this Court, we do not find any substantial question of law would arise for consideration. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE TL

More judgments on Section 10A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →