THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. BUSINESS PROCESS

PDF · subscribers
ITA/668/2015HC KarnatakaKAHC01045892201531 March 2016Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that since the issue was covered by a previous decision of the same court, no substantial question of law arose. The appeal was dismissed with liberty to the Revenue to take action if the Apex Court takes a different view.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against an ITAT order that allowed the assessee to recompute deduction under Section 10A. The appeal raised questions about reducing expenses from total turnover and relying on a High Court decision where an SLP was pending.

What were the issues?

Whether expenses reduced from export turnover should also be reduced from total turnover for Section 10A deduction, and whether reliance on a High Court decision with a pending SLP is permissible.

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.

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH 2016

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL AND THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.*668/2015

BETWEEN:

1.

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 5TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA, BANGALORE – 560 095.

2.

THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD-11(1) 2ND FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA, BANGALORE – 560 095.

... APPELLANTS

(BY SRI.K.V.ARAVIND, STANDING COUNSEL)

AND:

M/S. BUSINESS PROCESS OUTSOURCING (INDIA) PVT. LTD., TOWER 2D, VRINDAVAN TECH VILLAGE,

In view of the order passed on 19.08.2016, earlier order dated 31.03.2016 is withdrawn and fresh order is passed separately in ITA No.668/2016. The order passed in ITA No.668/15 c/w ITA No.678/15 on 31.03.2016 is kept for record purpose. * Separate order is passed vide Court order dated 19.08.2016

2 DEVARABEESANAHALLI, ORR, BANGALORE – 560 037 PAN: AABCB 5293N

... RESPONDENT

THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED:24/07/2015 PASSED IN ITA NO. 677/BANG/2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007- 2008 PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE AND ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE ITAT, BENGALURU IN ITA NO. 677/BANG/2012 DATED:24/07/2015 AND CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER AND CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(1), BENGALURU.

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

JUDGMENT

The appellant-Revenue has preferred this appeal by raising the following substantial questions of law: “1. Whether the Tribunal is justified in directing the assessing officer to recomputed the deduction under section 10A after reducing those expenses that were reduced only from export turnover, to reduce from

3 the total turnover also, without appreciating that there is no provision in section 10AA to the effect that such expenses should also be reduced from the total turnover, as clause (iv) of the Explanation to Section 10A provides that such expenses have to be reduced only from the export turnover?

2.

Whether the Tribunal was justified, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in allowing relief to the assessee relying on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka which has not reached its finality and SLP has been filed against such order on this issue in the case of Tata Elxsi Ltd 349 ITR 98(KAR)?

2.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant- Revenue Mr.K.V.Aravind as well as Sri E.I.Sanmathi concede that the issue is as such covered by Tata Elxsi Ltd 349 ITR 98(KAR). However, they submit that the matter is carried before the Apex Court and SLP is pending.

3.

In our view, when the issues are already covered by the decision of this Court, it cannot be said

4 that any substantial questions of law would arise for consideration.

4.

Hence, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed but with an observation that, in the event, the Apex Court takes a different view, the Revenue may be at liberty to take appropriate action in accordance with law.

5.

Subject to the abovesaid observation, the appeal is dismissed.

Sd/- JUDGE

Sd/- JUDGE

Sk/-

More judgments on Section 10A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →