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.264 OF 2016
BETWEEN
PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4
BMTC COMPLEX, KORAMANGALA
BANGALORE.
DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OFFICER
CIRCLE 12(1)
BANGALORE. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI.E.I.SANMATHI, ADV.)
AND
M/S.MAKINO INDIA PVT.LTD NO.11, EPIP, K.R.PURAM BANGALORE – 560 066 PAN: AACCM6536A
...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:04.11.2015 PASSED BY THE ITAT, ‘A’ BENCH, BENGALURU, IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS IN ITA NO.935/BANG/2014 FOR A.Y.2004-05.
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 question of law:
“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in directing the Assessing Officer to exclude reimbursement of certain expenditure incurred in foreign currency, both from the Export Turnover and Total Turnover, without appreciating the fact that the statute allows exclusion of such expenditure expressly only from the Export Turnover by way of specific definition of export turnover defined in the Act, while there is no specific provision in Section 10A warranting exclusion of the above expenses from the Total Turnover?”
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