THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S MIND TREE LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA/252/2013HC KarnatakaKAHC01021185201302 February 2016Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the revenue's appeal, following its own previous judgments in similar cases. The tribunal's decision, which allowed the reduction from total turnover, was upheld.

What were the facts?

The revenue appealed against an ITAT order that confirmed the Appellate Commissioner's decision. The core issue was whether communication charges and foreign currency expenditure excluded from export turnover should be reduced from total turnover under Section 10B of the Income Tax Act.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the correct interpretation and application of Explanation 2(iii) to Section 10B regarding the reduction of certain expenses from total turnover.

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 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.K. PATIL AND

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA

I.T.A.NO.252/2013

BETWEEN:

1.THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX LTU JSS TOWERS BSK III STAGE BANGALORE

2.THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU, JSS TOWERS BSK III STAGE BANGALORE ... APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. K V ARAVIND, ADVOCATE)

AND:

M/S MIND TREE LTD (FORMERLY MIND TREE CONSULTING PRIVATE LTD) GLOBAL VILLAGE, RVCE POST MYLASANDRA, MYSORE ROAD BANGALORE ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. CHYTHANYA K K, ADVOCATE )

- 2 -

THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF I.T. ACT, 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 11/01/2013 PASSED IN ITA NO.546/BANG/2012, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, PRAYING TO: FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN AND ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE ITAT, BANGALORE IN ITA NO.546/BANG/2012 DATED 11/01/2013 CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER AND CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU, BANGALORE.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, N.K.PATIL, J DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-

JUDGMENT

This appeal is by the revenue questioning the correctness of the order dated 11.01.2013 passed in ITA No.546/Bang/2012 confirming the order of the Appellate Commissioner and the order passed by the Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, LTU, Bangalore, for considering following substantial question of law:-

“Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the communication charges and expenditure incurred in foreign currency excluded from export turnover in terms of

- 3 - explanation 2(iii) to Section 10B of the Act has to be reduced from total turnover, contrary to the provisions of section 10B of the Act?.”

2.

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

3.

Learned counsel appearing for both the parties submitted that the subject matter is directly covered by the judgment of this Court dated 4th August 2015 passed in ITA No. 101/2015 (Commissioner of Income Tax V/S M/s Honeywell Technology Solution Lab Pvt. Ltd.) and the judgment in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Tata Elxi Limited (2012) 349 ITR 98 and therefore following the said judgments and for the reasons stated therein, the instant appeal may also be dismissed.

4.

The submissions of the learned counsel appearing for both the parties is placed on record.

5.

In the light of the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for both the parties, the instant

- 4 - appeal is disposed of following the judgment of this Court dated 4th August 2015 passed in ITA No. 101/2015 (Commissioner of Income Tax V/S M/s Honeywell Technology Solution Lab Pvt. Ltd.) and the judgment in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Tata Elxi Limited (2012) 349 ITR 98 and for the reasons stated therein.

6.

Further it is needless to clarify that, in the event, the revenue succeeds in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Tata Elxi Limited

(2012) 349 ITR 98, the respondent/assessee is at liberty to take appropriate steps in the matter in accordance with law, if so advised or need arises. Ordered accordingly.

SD/-

JUDGE

SD/-

JUDGE ra

More judgments on Section 10B

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →