DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S SECON PVT. LTD., BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 682/BANG/2014Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 March 2015AY 2010-112 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

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 precedent. The pendency of an SLP against the High Court's judgment was not considered a reason to deviate.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer excluded reimbursement of certain expenditure from export turnover. The assessee argued this 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, excluded from export turnover, should also be excluded from total turnover for calculating Section 10A deduction.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10A

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.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH: BANGALORE

Before: N.V.VASUDEVAN & SHRI ABRAHAM P.GEORGE

For Appellant: Dr. P.K.Srihari, Addl.CIT

Per ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, AM:

1.

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.Secon 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).

3.

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

More judgments on Section 10A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →