PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S SLK SOFTWARE

PDF · subscribers
ITA/540/2015HC KarnatakaKAHC01041856201529 February 2016Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL5 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Tata Elxsi, which was binding, covered the issue. Therefore, no substantial question of law arose for consideration.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against an ITAT order that confirmed the CIT(A)'s direction to exclude certain foreign currency expenditure from both export turnover and total turnover. The Revenue argued that the statute only allows exclusion from export turnover.

What were the issues?

Whether expenditure incurred in foreign currency can be excluded from total turnover, not just export turnover, based on the definition in Section 10B and relevant judicial precedents.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10B

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.

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL AND THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA ITA NO.540/2015

BETWEEN:

1.

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE

2.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI.E I SANMATHI, ADVOCATE)

AND

M/S.SLK SOFTWARE SERVICES PVT. LTD., 563/564, NIRAN ARCADE NEW BEML ROAD,

2 BANGALORE-560 047, PAN:AAAECS7548E ... RESPONDENT

THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED:14/05/2015 PASSED IN ITA NO.1459/BANG/2014, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-2011 PRAYING TO DECIDE THE FOREGOING QUESTION OF LAW AND/OR SUCH OTHER QUESTIONS OF LAW AS MAY BE FORMULATED BY THE HON'BLE COURT AS DEEMED FIT AND SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED: 14/05/2015 PASSED BY THE ITAT, 'C' BENCH, BENGALURU, IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS NO. ITA NO. 1459/BNG/2014 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-2011, AS SOUGHT FOR IN THIS APPEAL.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JAYANT PATEL J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

The appellant-Revenue has preferred the present appeal by raising the following substantial questions of law: “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in confirming the order of the

3 Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), in directing the Assessing Officer to exclude 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 10B warranting exclusion of the above expenses from the Total Turnover?"

2.

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

3.

We may record that, the Tribunal in the impugned order dated 14.5.2015 has observed at paragraph-7 and 8 as under: “7. The only grievance of the Revenue is that the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in Tata Elxsi (supra) has not attained finality and an appeal by the department is preferred before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. We are of the view that as of today, law declared by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka which is the jurisdictional High Court is binding on us.

4 We therefore hold that the order of CIT(A) does not call for any interference and accordingly the same is confirmed.

8.

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed.”

4.

The aforesaid shows that, the issue to be considered in the present appeal is already covered by the decision of this Court in case of CIT vs. Tata Elxsi reported in (2012) 349 ITR 98 (KARN) and as such, no substantial questions of law would arise for consideration.

5.

However, the learned counsel for appellant- revenue contended that, said decision of this court in Tata Elxsi (supra) is carried before the Apex Court and therefore, the question may not be concluded by this Court.

5 6. In our view, as on today, the decision of this Court in case of Tata Elxsi operates. Therefore, no substantial question of law would arise for consideration. However, in the event the Apex Court takes a different view, then, appellant-revenue should be at the liberty to take appropriate action in accordance with law.

7.

With the abovesaid observation, the present appeal is disposed of.

Sd/- JUDGE

Sd/- JUDGE

Sk/-

More judgments on Section 10B

All 1,217 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →