DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S SLK GLOBAL BPO SERVICES PVT. LTD., BANGALORE
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to exclude the reimbursement from total turnover, following the jurisdictional High Court's judgment in CIT vs. Tata Elxsi. The pendency of an SLP against the High Court's decision was not considered a reason to deviate.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer excluded reimbursement of certain expenditure from export turnover. The assessee claimed this reimbursement should also be excluded from total turnover for Section 10A deduction. The CIT(A) agreed with the assessee.
What were the issues?
Whether reimbursement of expenditure, not considered part of export turnover, should also be excluded from total turnover for the purpose of calculating deduction under Section 10A.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide 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.
- CIT v. Tata Elxsi Ltd.818 citing349 ITR 98 · 2012 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH: BANGALORE
Before: N.V.VASUDEVAN & SHRI ABRAHAM P.GEORGE
Per ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, AM:
This is a departmental appeal in which it assails the order of the CIT(A) to exclude re-imbursement of certain expenditure, not considered as part of export turnover by the Assessing Officer (AO), from the total turnover also while computing the deduction available to the assessee under sec.10A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short].
M/s.SLK Global BPO Services Pvt.Ltd. Page 2 of 2 2. We have heard the counsel for both sides. CIT(A) had relied on the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Tata Elxsi (349 ITR 98) for directing the exclusion of the item not included in export turnover from the total turnover also. Just because Special Leave Petition filed against the above judgment in the Supreme Court, will not in our opinion, be a good reason to disturb the directions given by CIT(A), yielding to wisdom of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court. We thus do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the ld.CIT(A).
Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
More judgments on Section 10A
- Ahaguru Education Technology Private… vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 1993/CHNY/2026[2023-24]Status: Disposed23 Sept 2026AY 2023-24
- M/S. Aradhyaa Infra & Holdings Pvt. Ltd… vs ITO, Corp. Ward-1(1), ChennaiITA 1793/CHNY/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed3 Sept 2026AY 2020-21
- Tech Mahindra Ltd, Mumbai vs DCIT Cir 2(3), MumbaiITA 7487/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: Disposed24 Aug 2026AY 2008-09
- D.C.I.T. Circle 3(3), Mumbai vs Rbs Business Services P. Ltd., MumbaiITA 4467/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: Disposed14 Aug 2026AY 2007-08
- Rbs Business Services P.Ltd, Mumbai vs DCIT Cir 3(3), MumbaiITA 4306/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: Disposed14 Aug 2026AY 2007-08
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sureshchandra Moolchand Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Larsen And Toubro Limited vs. Joint Commissioner Of Central GST And Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- T C Global INDIA Private Limited vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central GST, North DelhiDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Kamlasana Impex Private Limited vs. Director General Of GST Intelligence (Hq) Delhi) & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Ritu Gautam Proprietor Of Ms Heritage International vs. Additional Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax Appeals Ii Delhi & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026