CIT v. HCL Technologies Ltd.

404 ITR 719Supreme Court of India2018#556 most cited

What is CIT v. HCL Technologies Ltd. authority for?

When calculating deductions under sections like 10A or 10AA, any expenses or items reduced from 'export turnover' in the numerator must also be reduced from 'total turnover' in the denominator to ensure consistent application of the deduction formula.

174

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. HCL Technologies Ltd. · HCL Technologies · 404 ITR 719 · Section 10A · Section 10AA · export turnover · total turnover · deduction computation · consistent exclusion · communication expenses · travel expenses

Also reported as

302 CTR 191

Sections most often in play

Section 10ASection 10AASection 143(3)Section 234BSection 234CSection 115-OSection 14ASection 194R
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 10aworking capital adjustmentcomputer softwaretransfer pricing ordertested partycomparable companiesrelated party transactionsection 10aadividend distribution taxmost appropriate methodtnmmsection 40(a)(i)

Judgments citing CIT v. HCL Technologies Ltd.

M/S Google India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Special Range-3, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

ITA 3430/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Anmol Anand and Ms. Priya Tandon AdvocatesFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 234BSection 234DSection 26Section 27Section 271(1)(c)

…IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessee’s Appeals S.No. Appeal No. Asst. Year Assessee Revenue IT(TP)A No. The Deputy 1. 2010-11 68/Bang/2015 Commissioner of Income IT(TP)A No. Tax, 2. 2011-12 559/Bang/2016 Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore. IT(TP)A No. The Assistant 3. 2012-13 387/Bang/2017 Commissioner of Income IT(TP)A No. Tax, 4. 2013-14 M/s. Google India Pvt. Circl…

M/S. Google India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

ITA 387/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Anmol Anand and Ms. Priya Tandon AdvocatesFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 234BSection 234DSection 26Section 27Section 271(1)(c)

…IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessee’s Appeals S.No. Appeal No. Asst. Year Assessee Revenue IT(TP)A No. The Deputy 1. 2010-11 68/Bang/2015 Commissioner of Income IT(TP)A No. Tax, 2. 2011-12 559/Bang/2016 Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore. IT(TP)A No. The Assistant 3. 2012-13 387/Bang/2017 Commissioner of Income IT(TP)A No. Tax, 4. 2013-14 M/s. Google India Pvt. Circl…

Ms Google India Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

ITA 2890/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Anmol Anand and Ms. Priya Tandon AdvocatesFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 234BSection 234DSection 26Section 27Section 271(1)(c)

…IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessee’s Appeals S.No. Appeal No. Asst. Year Assessee Revenue IT(TP)A No. The Deputy 1. 2010-11 68/Bang/2015 Commissioner of Income IT(TP)A No. Tax, 2. 2011-12 559/Bang/2016 Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore. IT(TP)A No. The Assistant 3. 2012-13 387/Bang/2017 Commissioner of Income IT(TP)A No. Tax, 4. 2013-14 M/s. Google India Pvt. Circl…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Google India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

ITA 881/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Anmol Anand and Ms. Priya Tandon AdvocatesFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 234BSection 234DSection 26Section 27Section 271(1)(c)

…IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessee’s Appeals S.No. Appeal No. Asst. Year Assessee Revenue IT(TP)A No. The Deputy 1. 2010-11 68/Bang/2015 Commissioner of Income IT(TP)A No. Tax, 2. 2011-12 559/Bang/2016 Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore. IT(TP)A No. The Assistant 3. 2012-13 387/Bang/2017 Commissioner of Income IT(TP)A No. Tax, 4. 2013-14 M/s. Google India Pvt. Circl…

Google India Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

ITA 559/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Anmol Anand and Ms. Priya Tandon AdvocatesFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 234BSection 234DSection 26Section 27Section 271(1)(c)

…IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessee’s Appeals S.No. Appeal No. Asst. Year Assessee Revenue IT(TP)A No. The Deputy 1. 2010-11 68/Bang/2015 Commissioner of Income IT(TP)A No. Tax, 2. 2011-12 559/Bang/2016 Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore. IT(TP)A No. The Assistant 3. 2012-13 387/Bang/2017 Commissioner of Income IT(TP)A No. Tax, 4. 2013-14 M/s. Google India Pvt. Circl…

Google India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

ITA 68/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Anmol Anand and Ms. Priya Tandon AdvocatesFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 234BSection 234DSection 26Section 27Section 271(1)(c)

…IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessee’s Appeals S.No. Appeal No. Asst. Year Assessee Revenue IT(TP)A No. The Deputy 1. 2010-11 68/Bang/2015 Commissioner of Income IT(TP)A No. Tax, 2. 2011-12 559/Bang/2016 Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore. IT(TP)A No. The Assistant 3. 2012-13 387/Bang/2017 Commissioner of Income IT(TP)A No. Tax, 4. 2013-14 M/s. Google India Pvt. Circl…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Google India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

ITA 205/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Anmol Anand and Ms. Priya Tandon AdvocatesFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 234BSection 234DSection 26Section 27Section 271(1)(c)

…IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessee’s Appeals S.No. Appeal No. Asst. Year Assessee Revenue IT(TP)A No. The Deputy 1. 2010-11 68/Bang/2015 Commissioner of Income IT(TP)A No. Tax, 2. 2011-12 559/Bang/2016 Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore. IT(TP)A No. The Assistant 3. 2012-13 387/Bang/2017 Commissioner of Income IT(TP)A No. Tax, 4. 2013-14 M/s. Google India Pvt. Circl…

Oracle Financial Services Software Limited (Formerly Known As I-Flex Solutions Limited), Mumbai vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Range-8(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is treated as partly allowed

ITA 1473/MUM/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal (Jm)

Section 10ASection 14A

…d A.R submitted that the telecommunication charges may be directed to be deducted from both “Export turnover” and “Total turnover” while computing deduction u/s 10A of the Act as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. HCL Technologies Ltd (2018)(404 ITR 719)(SC). We agree with the submissions of the Ld A.R. Accordingly, we direct the AO to compute the deduction u/s 10A of the Act by excluding telecommunication charges both from export turnover and total turnover while computing deduction u/s 10A of the Act. 6. The next common issue relates to the addition relating to Transfer pricing adjustment in…

Larsen & Toubro Infotech Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 2(2), Mumbai

ITA 1924/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Percy J PardiwallaFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat, CIT DR
Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

…tion under Section 10A of the Act the amount excluded from „Export Turnover‟ by the Assessing Officer shall also be excluded from „Total Turnover‟ as per the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT, Central – III Vs. HCL Technologies Limited: 404 ITR 719 SC. In terms of the aforesaid, Ground No. 5 raised by the Appellant is partly allowed. 33. In result, the present appeal preferred by the Assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced on 30.05.2023. (B.R. Baskaran) Judicial Member 31 म ुंबई Mumbai; दिन ुंक Dated : 30.05.2023 Alindra, PS आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to…

M/S. Brightcom Group Limited (Formerly Known As Lycos Internet Limited), Hyderabad vs. DCIT Circle -16(1), Hyderabad

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 118/HYD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, CIT(DR)
Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

…over while calculating exemption u/s 10A of the I.T. Act. We find the issue stands squarely covered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by a plethora of decisions. We find the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of HCL Technologies Ltd reported in 404 ITR 719 has observed as under: ““17. The similar nature of controversy, akin this case, arose before the Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Tata Elxsi Ltd. [2012] 204 Taxman 321/17/taxman.com 100/349 ITR 98. The issue before the Karnataka High Court was whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that while computing relief under Section 10A of the IT Act, t…

DCIT, Circle-17(2), Hyd, Hyderabad vs. Lycos Internet Ltd (Presently Known As Brightcom Group Limited), Hyderabad

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 480/HYD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, CIT(DR)
Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

…over while calculating exemption u/s 10A of the I.T. Act. We find the issue stands squarely covered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by a plethora of decisions. We find the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of HCL Technologies Ltd reported in 404 ITR 719 has observed as under: ““17. The similar nature of controversy, akin this case, arose before the Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Tata Elxsi Ltd. [2012] 204 Taxman 321/17/taxman.com 100/349 ITR 98. The issue before the Karnataka High Court was whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that while computing relief under Section 10A of the IT Act, t…

M/S. Brightcom Group Limited (Formerly Known As Lycos Internet Limited), Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-17(2), Hyderabad

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 451/HYD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, CIT(DR)
Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

…over while calculating exemption u/s 10A of the I.T. Act. We find the issue stands squarely covered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by a plethora of decisions. We find the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of HCL Technologies Ltd reported in 404 ITR 719 has observed as under: ““17. The similar nature of controversy, akin this case, arose before the Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Tata Elxsi Ltd. [2012] 204 Taxman 321/17/taxman.com 100/349 ITR 98. The issue before the Karnataka High Court was whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that while computing relief under Section 10A of the IT Act, t…

M/S. Brightcom Group Limited (Formerly Known As Lycos Internet Limited), Hyderabad vs. DCIT Circle -17(2), Hyderabad

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 365/HYD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, CIT(DR)
Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

…over while calculating exemption u/s 10A of the I.T. Act. We find the issue stands squarely covered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by a plethora of decisions. We find the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of HCL Technologies Ltd reported in 404 ITR 719 has observed as under: ““17. The similar nature of controversy, akin this case, arose before the Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Tata Elxsi Ltd. [2012] 204 Taxman 321/17/taxman.com 100/349 ITR 98. The issue before the Karnataka High Court was whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that while computing relief under Section 10A of the IT Act, t…

ACIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Pentasoft Technologies Ltd., Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1248/CHNY/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Nov 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1158/Chny/2011 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2001-02 M/S.Pentasoft Technologies Ltd., V. The Ito (Osd)/The Acit, No.1, First Main Road, Company Circle-V(2), United India Colony, Chennai. Kodambakkam, Chennai – 600 024. [Pan: Aaacp 1895 R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.I. Dinesh, AdvFor Respondent: Dr.S.Palanikumar, CIT

…ed that when unrealized sale proceeds are excluded from export turnover, then same needs to be excluded from total turnover and this view is supported by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. HCL Technologies Ltd., reported in [2018] 404 ITR 719 (SC). 5.1 The Ld.DR, on the other hand, supporting the order of the Ld.CIT(A), fairly agreed that this issue is covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of HCL Technologies Ltd. (supra). 5.2 We have heard both the parties, perused the materials available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. The i…

Pentasoft Technologies Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO (OSD), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1158/CHNY/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Nov 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1158/Chny/2011 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2001-02 M/S.Pentasoft Technologies Ltd., V. The Ito (Osd)/The Acit, No.1, First Main Road, Company Circle-V(2), United India Colony, Chennai. Kodambakkam, Chennai – 600 024. [Pan: Aaacp 1895 R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.I. Dinesh, AdvFor Respondent: Dr.S.Palanikumar, CIT

…ed that when unrealized sale proceeds are excluded from export turnover, then same needs to be excluded from total turnover and this view is supported by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. HCL Technologies Ltd., reported in [2018] 404 ITR 719 (SC). 5.1 The Ld.DR, on the other hand, supporting the order of the Ld.CIT(A), fairly agreed that this issue is covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of HCL Technologies Ltd. (supra). 5.2 We have heard both the parties, perused the materials available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. The i…

M/S Dell International Services India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee and the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 932/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No.844/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Joint Vs. M/S.Dell International Services India Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Ltu, (For The Merged Entity Dell India Bangalore. Private Limited), No.12/1, 12/2A, 13/1A, Divyashree Gardens, Challagutta Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore – 560 071. Pan : Aaach1925Q Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.932/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S.Dell International Services Vs. The Joint Commissioner India Private Limited, Of Income Tax, Ltu, (For The Merged Entity Dell India Bangalore. Private Limited), Bangalore – 560 071. Pan : Aaach1925Q Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Assessee By : Shri T. Suryanarayana, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 07.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.11.2022

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri
Section 143(2)Section 92C

…ver and the total turnover. 62. We notice that the issue is settled now by the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT v. Tata Elxsi Ltd. which is affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v. HCL Technologies reported in [(2018) 404 ITR 719] that any adjustment made to the export turnover ought to be correspondingly made to the total turnover as parity is to be maintained between the two. We therefore direct the AO accordingly to make the adjustment, if any, towards telecommunication charges in foreign currency from the export turnover and the total turnover in the remanded proceedi…

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Ltu), Bangalore vs. M/S Dell International Services India Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee and the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 844/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No.844/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Joint Vs. M/S.Dell International Services India Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Ltu, (For The Merged Entity Dell India Bangalore. Private Limited), No.12/1, 12/2A, 13/1A, Divyashree Gardens, Challagutta Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore – 560 071. Pan : Aaach1925Q Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.932/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S.Dell International Services Vs. The Joint Commissioner India Private Limited, Of Income Tax, Ltu, (For The Merged Entity Dell India Bangalore. Private Limited), Bangalore – 560 071. Pan : Aaach1925Q Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Assessee By : Shri T. Suryanarayana, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 07.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.11.2022

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri
Section 143(2)Section 92C

…ver and the total turnover. 62. We notice that the issue is settled now by the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT v. Tata Elxsi Ltd. which is affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v. HCL Technologies reported in [(2018) 404 ITR 719] that any adjustment made to the export turnover ought to be correspondingly made to the total turnover as parity is to be maintained between the two. We therefore direct the AO accordingly to make the adjustment, if any, towards telecommunication charges in foreign currency from the export turnover and the total turnover in the remanded proceedi…

M/S. Tesco Bengaluru Private Limited (Formerly Known As Tesco Hindustan Service Centre Private Limited), Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range- 7, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of assessee in ITA

ITA 2387/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Sr. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 40

…e heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. After hearing both the parties, we are of the opinion that this is squarely covered by the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. HCL Technologies Ltd. reported in 404 ITR 719 wherein held as follows: “Neither section 10A nor section 2 of the Income tax Act, 1961 defines the term “total turnover”. The term “total turnover” is defined in clause (ba) of the Explanation to section 80HHC of the Act. Explanation 2(iv) to section 10A of the Act defines “export turnover” to mean the consideration that has been received for e…

M/S Tesco Bengaluru Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Special Range-7, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of assessee in ITA

ITA 2898/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Sr. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 40

…e heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. After hearing both the parties, we are of the opinion that this is squarely covered by the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. HCL Technologies Ltd. reported in 404 ITR 719 wherein held as follows: “Neither section 10A nor section 2 of the Income tax Act, 1961 defines the term “total turnover”. The term “total turnover” is defined in clause (ba) of the Explanation to section 80HHC of the Act. Explanation 2(iv) to section 10A of the Act defines “export turnover” to mean the consideration that has been received for e…

Sitel India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 8(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1777/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain a/wFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh
Section 10ASection 250

…he disallowance of communication line expenses and legal and professional charges should be considered for computation of deduction under section 10A of the Act by placing reliance upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs HCL Technologies Ltd., [2018] 404 ITR 719 (SC). 22. We find that in HCL Technologies Ltd. (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court held that while computing deduction under section 10 A of the Act, expenses excluded from ‘export turnover’ have to be excluded from ‘total turnover’ also, otherwise, any other interpretation makes the formula under section 10A unworkable and absurd and, hence, such d…