COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S.TAWANT TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

PDF · subscribers
ITA/85/2013HC KarnatakaKAHC01033574201328 June 2016Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the questions of law were covered by its previous decision in CIT vs. Tata Elxsi Ltd. Therefore, no substantial question of law arose for consideration.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the ITAT's decision to exclude certain expenses from the total turnover for Section 10A deduction. The expenses included reimbursement for freight, insurance, telecommunication, and foreign travel.

What were the issues?

Whether reimbursement of expenses for freight, insurance, telecommunication, and foreign travel should be excluded from total turnover for Section 10A deduction. Whether the ITAT was correct in following the jurisdictional High Court's judgment in Tata Elxsi Ltd.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10A

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. 85 OF 2013 C/W ITA NO. 84 OF 2013

BETWEEN

1.

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

BANGALORE – III

BANGALORE.

2.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

CIRCLE 12(4)

BANGALORE. ... APPELLANTS

(COMMON) (BY SRI.E.I.SANMATHI, ADV.)

AND

M/S.TAWANT TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED GUAVA GARDEN, 5TH BLOCK KORAMANGALA BANGALORE – 560 095.

...RESPONDENT

(COMMON) (BY SRI.P.DINESHA, ADV. FOR SRI.S.PARTHASARATHI, ADV.)

THESE ITAs. ARE FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW AND / OR ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET

ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE ITAT, BANGALORE PASSED IN ITA NO.33/BANG/2012 AND ITA NO.32/BANG/2012 RESPECTIVELY DATED 28.09.2012 AND ORDER OF CIT(APPEALS)-III, BANGALORE DATED 27.10.2011 IN APPEAL NO.192/C- 12(4)/CIT(A)-III/BNG/08-09 AND 191/C-12(4)/CIT(A)- III/BNG/08-9 RESPECTIVELY.

THESE ITAs COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, JAYANT PATEL J. DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

The appellants-Revenue have preferred the present appeals by raising the following substantial questions of law:

“i. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in holding that the reimbursement of expenditure of Rs.1,36,84,066/-

and Rs.83,08,903/- respectively towards freight, insurance and telecommunication expenses and Rs.18,57,790/- and Rs.6,87,042/- respectively towards foreign travel expenses incurred in foreign currency are to be excluded from total turnover as well for computation of deduction under Section 10A whereas such exclusion is permitted to arrive at export turnover only as per the definitions given in section 10A of the IT Act and total turnover has not been defined in the section?

ii. Whether, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the deduction under section 10A

should be computed in the above manner following the judgment of jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Tata Elxsi Ltd. which has not become final since the same has not been accepted by the Department and SLP is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court?”

2.

Mr.E.I.Sanmathi, learned counsel appearing for the appellants states that Mr.Thirumalesh, whose name is mentioned in the Board as learned counsel for the appellants is no more in the panel of the Income Tax Department and he has received authorization. He further states that his appearance shall be filed within one week from today.

3.

Under these circumstances, we find it appropriate to hear Mr.E.I.Sanmathi, learned counsel for the appellants.

4.

We have heard Mr.P.Dinesha, Advocate, appearing on behalf of *Mr.S.Parthasarathi, Advocate for the respondent.

5.

Learned counsel for the appellants-Revenue fairly concedes that both the questions are covered by the *Corrected vide Court order dated 05.08.2016

decision of this Court in the case Commissioner of Income Tax & Another –vs- Tata Elxsi Ltd. & Ors. reported in (2012) 349 ITR 98 (Karn).

6.

In our view, when the questions are already covered by the decision of this Court, we do not find any substantial question of law would arise for consideration. Hence, the present appeals are 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 →