COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S FAMOUS COMMERCIAL

PDF · subscribers
RP/112/2012HC KarnatakaKAHC01017814201222 June 2012Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,N.KUMAR4 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that losses of non-STP units should not be set off against profits of STP units before computing Section 10A deduction. It also held that telecommunication and insurance expenses incurred outside India should be excluded from 'export turnover' and 'total turnover' for Section 10A deduction.

What were the facts?

The revenue appealed against an ITAT order that granted relief to the assessee. The appeal raised two substantial questions of law concerning the set-off of losses and the exclusion of certain expenses from export turnover for Section 10A deduction.

What were the issues?

Whether losses from non-STP units can be set off against profits of STP units for Section 10A deduction, and whether foreign telecommunication/insurance expenses should be excluded from export/total turnover for Section 10A deduction.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10A,Section 260A,Section 260(1A)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)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 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;

1.

The Commissioner of Income-tax

LTU, JSS Towers

BSK III Stage

Bangalore.

2.

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.

2.

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?

2.

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?

3.

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.

4.

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.

5.

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*

More judgments on Section 10A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →