PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 vs. M/S MAKINO INDIA PVT LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA/264/2016HC KarnatakaKAHC01031448201628 June 2016Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that the question of law was covered by a previous judgment of the same court. Therefore, no substantial question of law arose for consideration.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against an ITAT order directing the exclusion of foreign currency expenditure reimbursement from both export and total turnover. The Revenue argued that the statute only allowed exclusion from export turnover.

What were the issues?

Whether reimbursement of foreign currency expenditure should be excluded from total turnover in addition to export turnover under Section 10A, when the statute explicitly defines exclusion only from export turnover.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10A,Section 260-A

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.264 OF 2016

BETWEEN

1.

PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4

BMTC COMPLEX, KORAMANGALA

BANGALORE.

2.

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?”

2.

We have heard Mr.E.I.Sanmathi, learned counsel appearing for the appellants-Revenue.

3.

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).

4.

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

More judgments on Section 10A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →