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.302 OF 2016
BETWEEN
PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDINGS
QUEENS ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 001.
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
CIRCLE 12(2)
BANGALORE. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI.E.I.SANMATHI, ADV.)
AND
M/S. OCWEN FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS PVT LTD. 4TH & 6TH FLOORS SALARPURIA ARENA NO.24, HOSUR ROAD BANGALORE – 560 030 PAN: AAACO3764E.
...RESPONDENT
THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, PRAYING TO DECIDE THE QUESTION OF LAW AND / OR SUCH OTHER QUESTIONS OF LAW AS MAY BE FORMULATED BY THE HON’BLE COURT AND SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 2.11.15 PASSED BY THE ITAT, ‘B’
BENCH, BENGALURU, IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS IN IT(TP)A NO.1318/BANG/2011, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-2008.
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:
“Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has erred in law by directing the Assessing Officer to reduce the expenditure incurred in foreign currency, both from the Export Turnover and Total Turnover for the purpose of re-computation of deduction under Section 10A without appreciating the fact that the statute allows exclusion of such expenditure only from ETO 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 the above expenses from the Total Turnover also?”
We have heard Mr.E.I.Sanmathi, learned counsel appearing for the appellants-Revenue.
Learned counsel for the appellants-Revenue fairly concedes that the question of law is covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax & Another –vs- Tata Elxsi Ltd. & Ors. reported in (2012) 349 ITR 98 (Karn).
In our view, when the question is 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