Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
N THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2016
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
AND
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA
I.T.A. NO.539/2015
BETWEEN:
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, C.R. BUILDINGS, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001.
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-12 (2), BANGALORE.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI: E.I. SANMATHI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
M/S. LAM RESEARCH (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, ‘A’ BLOCK, 11/1 & 12/1, AMARJYOTHI LAYOUT, INTERMEDIATE RING ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 071. PAN: AABCB2063Q.
... RESPONDENT
*****
THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED:30/04/2015 PASSED IN IT(TP)A NO.1385/BANG/2014, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-2010 AND ETC.,
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JAYANT PATEL J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
J U D G M E N T
The revenue has preferred the present appeal by raising the following substantial questions of law: i) “Whether, on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in confirming the order of Commissioner relating to computation of deduction under Section 10A by relying upon the decision of this Hon’ble Court in the case of Tata Elxsi Ltd., to exclude the foreign travel both from the total turnover and the export turnover even when the same is not permissible in law and the decision relied upon by Tribunal has not reached finality”?
ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in super-imposing the decisions of other benches of the Tribunal in the case of assessee to reject these comparables when selection of comparables in a case depends on pricing on assessee specific FAR analysis?
iii) Whether, the Tribunal erred in holding that the comparables used by the Transfer Pricing Officer were functionally different even though they satisfied all the qualitative and quantitative filters adopted by the Transfer Pricing Officer?
iv) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in excluding comparables such as (i) Accentia Technologies Ltd., (ii) Cosmis Global Ltd., (iii)Eclerx Services Ltd., (iv) Infosys BPO Ltd., and (i) Tata Elxsi Ltd., (ii) Infosys Technologies Ltd., (iii) Bodhtree Consulting Ltd., (iv)Persistent System Ltd., (v) Sasken Communication Technologies (vi) Zylog System (vii) Mindtree Ltd., (viii) L&T Infotech Ltd., even when the TPO has rightly chosen them as comparables considering the functions and applicability of the same in respect of facts of present case?”
We have heard Mr.E.I.Sanmathi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant.
Learned counsel for the appellant states that he is not pressing question Nos.2 to 4 in the present
appeal since he has already pressed the aforesaid questions in I.T.A.No.538/2015, which have been admitted on the aforesaid questions.
In view of the above, question Nos.2 to 4 are not required to be considered in the present appeal.
On the first question, learned counsel fairly conceded that the issue is already covered by a decision of this Court in Tata Elxsi Ltd., v. CIT [349 ITR 98 (Kar)]. However, the Revenue has carried the matter before the Apex Court.
In view of the above, when the issue is already covered by a decision of this Court in Tata Elxsi Ltd., supra, we do not find that question No.1 would arise for our consideration in the present appeal. However, it is observed that in the event the Apex Court takes a different view, the appellant/Revenue may take up proceedings in accordance with law.
Subject to the aforesaid observation, the present appeal is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE S*