Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2014
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. KUMAR
AND
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MANOHAR
ITA NO.112 OF 2012
BETWEEN;
The Commissioner of Income-tax
LTU, JSS Towers
BSK III Stage
Bangalore.
The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax
Circle-11(4), C.R.Building
Queens Road
Bangalore.
...APPELLANTS (By Shri.K.V.Aravind, Advocate)
AND:
M/s.Intel Technology India Pvt. Ltd., SRR2, Survey No.23-56P Devarabeesanahalli Outer Ring Road, Varthur Hobli Bangalore South Taluk Bangalore – 560 103.
...RESPONDENT
(By Shri.T.Suryanarayana, Advocate for M/s.King & Partridge)
This ITA is filed under Section 260-A of IT Act, 1961 arising out of order dated 19-12-2011 passed in ITA No.975/Bang/2010, for the Assessment Year 2002-
2 03 praying to formulate the substantial questions of law stated therein and allow the appeal and set aside the orders passed by the ITAT, Bangalore in ITA No.975/Bang/2010 dated 19.12.2011 and confirm the orders of the Appellate Commissioner confirming the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-11(4), Bangalore.
This ITA coming on for Admission, this day, N. KUMAR, J. delivered the following:-
JUDGMENT
The revenue has preferred this appeal against the order passed by the Tribunal granting relief to the assessee.
The revenue has raised two substantial questions of law for consideration in their appeal memo. They are as under:- 1. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the losses as well as carried forward losses of non-STP unit should not be set off against profits of STP units before computing deduction u/s. 10A of the Act?
Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the telecommunication and insurance expenses incurred outside India was liable to be excluded from “export turnover” as well as from
3 “total turnover” before allowing deduction u/s. 10A of the Act?
In so far as the first substantial question of law is concerned, this Court had an occasion to consider the same in the case of THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AND ANOTHER VS. M/S.YOKOGAWA INDIA LTD., reported in 341 ITR 385 and the said issue was held in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Accordingly, we answer the first substantial question of law in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.
Similarly, the second substantial question of law was also considered by this Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR. VS. TATA ELXSI LTD., & ORS. reported in 349 ITR 98 where this question was answered in favour of the assessee. Following the same, we answer the 2nd substantial question of law in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.
However, both the judgments of this Court referred to supra are the subject matter of the appeal
4 before the Hon’ble Apex Court. In the event of the revenue succeeding in the appeal, the Assessing Authority shall pass appropriate orders in terms of Section 260(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Accordingly, this appeal is disposed off.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
Prs*