Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
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. 113 OF 2013
BETWEEN
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
BANGALORE – III
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
CIRCLE – 12(3)
BANGALORE ... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.E.I.SANMATHI, ADV.)
AND
SLK SOFTWARE SERVICES PVT.LTD 563-564, NIRAN ARCADE NEW BEL ROAD SANJAYNAGAR BANGALORE – 560 094. ...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 ALLOW THE APPEAL SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE ITAT, BANGALORE, DATED: 12.10.2012 PASSED IN ITA NO.186/BANG/2012, FOR THE ASSESSMENT
YEAR 2005-06 AND ORDER OF CIT (APPEALS)-III BANGALORE DATED 29.11.11 IN APPEAL ITA NO.171/C-12(3)/CIT(A)-III/2010- 11.
THIS ITA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION 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 telecommunication charges of Rs.70,95,452 and travel expenses of Rs.1,27,33,157 are to be excluded both 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?”
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.
Under these circumstances, we find it appropriate to hear Mr.E.I.Sanmathi, learned counsel for the appellants.
We have heard Mr.P.Dinesha, Advocate, appearing on behalf of Mr.K.R.Vasudevan, Advocate for the respondent.
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).
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