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 367,368 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.

ACIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Beach Mineral Co. Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

ITA 2114/CHNY/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Nov 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S.Jayaraman

For Appellant: Mr.S.Sridhar,AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.AR.V.Sreenivasan,JCIT,DR
Section 10BSection 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)

…would become exempt income. 7.2 In respect of Ground Nos. 4.1 to 4.2 of Revenue’s appeal, it was submitted by ld.AR that the issue was squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of C.I.T Vs. HCL Technologies Ltd., reported in 404 ITR 719(SC) wherein the Supreme Court has held that if a term is defined u/s.2 of the Act, then definition would be applicable to all provisions wherein same term appears; and the term ‘total turnover’ has been defined in Explanation to Sections 80HHC and 80HHE of the Act, wherein it has been clearly stated that ‘for purposes of this section only’, an…

ACIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Beach Mineral Co. Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

ITA 2113/CHNY/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Nov 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S.Jayaraman

For Appellant: Mr.S.Sridhar,AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.AR.V.Sreenivasan,JCIT,DR
Section 10BSection 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)

…would become exempt income. 7.2 In respect of Ground Nos. 4.1 to 4.2 of Revenue’s appeal, it was submitted by ld.AR that the issue was squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of C.I.T Vs. HCL Technologies Ltd., reported in 404 ITR 719(SC) wherein the Supreme Court has held that if a term is defined u/s.2 of the Act, then definition would be applicable to all provisions wherein same term appears; and the term ‘total turnover’ has been defined in Explanation to Sections 80HHC and 80HHE of the Act, wherein it has been clearly stated that ‘for purposes of this section only’, an…

M/S. Beach Mineral Company (P) Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

ITA 1904/CHNY/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Nov 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S.Jayaraman

For Appellant: Mr.S.Sridhar,AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.AR.V.Sreenivasan,JCIT,DR
Section 10BSection 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)

…would become exempt income. 7.2 In respect of Ground Nos. 4.1 to 4.2 of Revenue’s appeal, it was submitted by ld.AR that the issue was squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of C.I.T Vs. HCL Technologies Ltd., reported in 404 ITR 719(SC) wherein the Supreme Court has held that if a term is defined u/s.2 of the Act, then definition would be applicable to all provisions wherein same term appears; and the term ‘total turnover’ has been defined in Explanation to Sections 80HHC and 80HHE of the Act, wherein it has been clearly stated that ‘for purposes of this section only’, an…

Tata Consultancy Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Ltu -1, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5713/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri Porus KakaFor Respondent: Shri Manish Kumar Singh
Section 10ASection 115JSection 2(43)Section 37Section 40Section 90

…redundant. "10] Coming to the revenue's contention in relation to the computation of benefit of section 10A of the Act, this issue is squarely covered by the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. HCL Technologies, reported in 404 ITR 719, in which the Court held that the total turnover for the purpose of section 10 of the Act cannot be understood as defined for the purpose of section 80 HHE. It was further held that thus the expenses which are to be excluded from the export turnover, would also have to be excluded for the purpose of computing total turnover. 2. Thus, respectfull…

R Systems International Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 690/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 10ASection 10A(4)Section 115JSection 154Section 234B

…software and the travelling expenses were for providing technical 4 services outside India. The Ld. AR submitted that the issue is no more res- integra and is covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT v. HCL Technologies Ltd. (2018) 404 ITR 719 (SC). The Assessing Officer on estimate basis had excluded 60% of software development charges from export turnover as expenditure on technical services outside India. Though the CIT(A) observed that the Assessing Officer has not brought any evidence that assessee was providing technical services outside India, still 10% of software development c…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Hcl Comnet System & Services Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal for assessment years 2009-10 is dismissed whereas appeal for assessment year 2010-11 is partly allowed

ITA 4808/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Hcl Comnet System & Circle-11(1), Services Ltd., New Delhi 806, Sidharth, 96, Nehru Place, New Delhi Pan :Aaach3130M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…deduction under Section 10A of the Act. 6.1 Before us, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue in dispute is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. HCL Technologies Ltd., [2018] 404 ITR 719 (SC). We find that the learned CIT(A) has followed the decision of the Hon’ble High Court in the case of the HCL Technologies, which has now been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The finding of the learned CIT(A) is reproduced as under: “Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, the legal submission of the appellant, the relian…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Hcl Comnet System & Services Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal for assessment years 2009-10 is dismissed whereas appeal for assessment year 2010-11 is partly allowed

ITA 4807/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Hcl Comnet System & Circle-11(1), Services Ltd., New Delhi 806, Sidharth, 96, Nehru Place, New Delhi Pan :Aaach3130M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…deduction under Section 10A of the Act. 6.1 Before us, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue in dispute is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. HCL Technologies Ltd., [2018] 404 ITR 719 (SC). We find that the learned CIT(A) has followed the decision of the Hon’ble High Court in the case of the HCL Technologies, which has now been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The finding of the learned CIT(A) is reproduced as under: “Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, the legal submission of the appellant, the relian…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore vs. M/S Infosys Bpo Ltd, Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1333/BANG/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Sept 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt.Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Miss. Neera Malhotra, CIT, DR
Section 10ASection 14ASection 40

…nover by Ld.CIT (A) for purposes of computation of deduction under section 10A. At the outset Ld.CIT DR concedes that, issue stands settled in favour of assessee by decision of Hon’able Supreme Court in case of CIT vs HCL Technologies Ltd., reported in (2018) 404 ITR 719, wherein, it is been held that, expenses reduced from export ITA Nos.1333 & 1367(B)/2014 9 turnover should also be reduced from total turnover while computing deduction under section 10A. In the light of aforestated submissions, we dismiss these grounds raised by revenue. 8. Ground No. 6 is in respect of allowing deduction under section 10A befo…

Sadhvi Securities P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circler-5, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1047/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2014-15 Sadhvi Securities P. Ltd., Vs Acit, 13/34, Wea, Arya Samaj Road, Central Circle-5, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aahcs7130D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri V.P. Gupta & Shri Anunav Kumar, Advocates Revenue By : Shri S.S. Rana, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.05.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.07.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15Th January, 2019 Of The Cit(A)-24, Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company & Is Engaged In The Business Of Share Trading. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 27.11.2014 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.910/-. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer Noted That The Assessee Has Introduced Share Capital By Issuing 1800000 Equity Shares Of Rs.10 Each At A Premium Of Rs.90 Per Share Aggregating To Rs.18 Crore In The Balance Sheet As On 31.03.2014. Since The Assessee Has Charged Very High Premium On The Shares So Allotted, The Assessing Officer Asked The Assessee To Furnish Complete

For Appellant: Shri V.P. Gupta &For Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT, DR
Section 56(2)(viib)

…Modipon Ltd., Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd. (2018)400 ITR 1 (SC) xi) Pr. CIT v. IDMC Ltd., (2017) 393 ITR 441 (Guj.) xii) Pr. CIT v. IDMC Ltd., (2017) 10 TMI 732 (SC). xiii) CIT v. Suresh Nanda (2015) 375 ITR 172 (Del). xiv) CIT v. HCL Technologies Ltd. (2018) 404 ITR 719 (SC). xv) Southern Motors v. State of Karnataka and Ors, AIR 2017 SC 476. 9. The ld. counsel for the assessee, referring to the Stay Application No.129/Del/2019, order dated 6th March, 2019 submitted that while granting stay to 9 the assessee, the Tribunal observed that no unaccounted money is involved nor any money transaction took place. He acc…

DCIT vs. M/S Timken Engineering and Research Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 469/BANG/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 May 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Aliasger Rampurawala, CAFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Panda, CIT (DR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

…f the assessee by the judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Tata Elxsi Ltd. as reported in 349 ITR 98 and also by the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. HCL Technologies Ltd. as reported in [2018] 404 ITR 719 (SC). In reply the ld. DR of revenue had nothing to say. 6. We have considered the submissions of ld. AR of assessee. We find that in these grounds, the issue raised by assessee is this that AO has erred in treating telecommunication expenses of Rs. 1,28,66,261/-, freight charges of Rs. 8,24,428/- and insurance charges of Rs. 24,70,891/- as being…

M/S Timken Engineering & Research India P. Ltd vs. DCIT

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 335/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Aliasger Rampurawala, CAFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Panda, CIT (DR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

…f the assessee by the judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Tata Elxsi Ltd. as reported in 349 ITR 98 and also by the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. HCL Technologies Ltd. as reported in [2018] 404 ITR 719 (SC). In reply the ld. DR of revenue had nothing to say. 6. We have considered the submissions of ld. AR of assessee. We find that in these grounds, the issue raised by assessee is this that AO has erred in treating telecommunication expenses of Rs. 1,28,66,261/-, freight charges of Rs. 8,24,428/- and insurance charges of Rs. 24,70,891/- as being…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Timken Engineering & Research India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 686/BANG/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 May 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Aliasger Rampurawala, CAFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Panda, CIT (DR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

…f the assessee by the judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Tata Elxsi Ltd. as reported in 349 ITR 98 and also by the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. HCL Technologies Ltd. as reported in [2018] 404 ITR 719 (SC). In reply the ld. DR of revenue had nothing to say. 6. We have considered the submissions of ld. AR of assessee. We find that in these grounds, the issue raised by assessee is this that AO has erred in treating telecommunication expenses of Rs. 1,28,66,261/-, freight charges of Rs. 8,24,428/- and insurance charges of Rs. 24,70,891/- as being…

Timken Engineering & Research India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 604/BANG/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 May 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Aliasger Rampurawala, CAFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Panda, CIT (DR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

…f the assessee by the judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Tata Elxsi Ltd. as reported in 349 ITR 98 and also by the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. HCL Technologies Ltd. as reported in [2018] 404 ITR 719 (SC). In reply the ld. DR of revenue had nothing to say. 6. We have considered the submissions of ld. AR of assessee. We find that in these grounds, the issue raised by assessee is this that AO has erred in treating telecommunication expenses of Rs. 1,28,66,261/-, freight charges of Rs. 8,24,428/- and insurance charges of Rs. 24,70,891/- as being…

M/S. Timken Engineering & Research India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 1339/BANG/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 May 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Aliasger Rampurawala, CAFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Panda, CIT (DR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

…f the assessee by the judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Tata Elxsi Ltd. as reported in 349 ITR 98 and also by the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. HCL Technologies Ltd. as reported in [2018] 404 ITR 719 (SC). In reply the ld. DR of revenue had nothing to say. 6. We have considered the submissions of ld. AR of assessee. We find that in these grounds, the issue raised by assessee is this that AO has erred in treating telecommunication expenses of Rs. 1,28,66,261/-, freight charges of Rs. 8,24,428/- and insurance charges of Rs. 24,70,891/- as being…

DCIT vs. M/S Anz Operation & Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2007-08 and C

ITA 483/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Keerthi Narayan, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)
Section 10A

…ed in the IT(TP)A Nos.432 & 403/Bang/2012, 483/Bang/2013 & C.O. No. 130/Bang/2015 Page 3 of 6 case of CIT Vs. Tata Elxsi Ltd. as reported in 349 ITR 98 and the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. HCL Technologies Ltd. as reported in 302 CTR 191 and there is no other ground. 3. Regarding Assessment Year 2008-09, it was submitted that in this appeal of the revenue also, there is one more ground regarding corporate tax issue as per ground no. 2 in respect of computation of deduction allowable u/s. 10A of IT Act which is similar to the ground raised in Assessment Year 2007-08 and other grou…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Anz Operations & Technology Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2007-08 and C

ITA 432/BANG/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 May 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Keerthi Narayan, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)
Section 10A

…ed in the IT(TP)A Nos.432 & 403/Bang/2012, 483/Bang/2013 & C.O. No. 130/Bang/2015 Page 3 of 6 case of CIT Vs. Tata Elxsi Ltd. as reported in 349 ITR 98 and the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. HCL Technologies Ltd. as reported in 302 CTR 191 and there is no other ground. 3. Regarding Assessment Year 2008-09, it was submitted that in this appeal of the revenue also, there is one more ground regarding corporate tax issue as per ground no. 2 in respect of computation of deduction allowable u/s. 10A of IT Act which is similar to the ground raised in Assessment Year 2007-08 and other grou…

M/S Anz Operations and Technology Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2007-08 and C

ITA 403/BANG/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 May 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Keerthi Narayan, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)
Section 10A

…ed in the IT(TP)A Nos.432 & 403/Bang/2012, 483/Bang/2013 & C.O. No. 130/Bang/2015 Page 3 of 6 case of CIT Vs. Tata Elxsi Ltd. as reported in 349 ITR 98 and the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. HCL Technologies Ltd. as reported in 302 CTR 191 and there is no other ground. 3. Regarding Assessment Year 2008-09, it was submitted that in this appeal of the revenue also, there is one more ground regarding corporate tax issue as per ground no. 2 in respect of computation of deduction allowable u/s. 10A of IT Act which is similar to the ground raised in Assessment Year 2007-08 and other grou…

DCIT, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad vs. Green Fire Agri Commodities Ltd (Presently Known As M/S Proceeds India Private Limited), Hyderabad Hyderabad, Hyderabad

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 948/HYD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Green Fire Agri Circle-16(2), Commodities Ltd Hyderabad. (Presently Known As M/S. Proceeds India Private Limited), Hyderabad. Pan: Aabcn 7753 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P.V.S.S. Prasad Revenue By: Smt. Neeju Gupta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 27/03/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 05/04/2019 Order Per Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, J.M.:

For Appellant: Shri P.V.S.S. PrasadFor Respondent: Smt. Neeju Gupta, DR
Section 10ASection 10A(3)Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH “A”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2009-10 DCIT, Vs. M/s. Green Fire Agri Circle-16(2), Commodities Ltd Hyderabad. (Presently known as M/s. Proceeds India Private Limited), Hyderabad. PAN: AABCN 7753 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri P.V.S.S. Prasad Revenue by: Smt. Neeju Gupta, DR Date of hearing: 27/03/2019 Date of pronouncement: 05/04/2019 ORDER PER Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, J.M.: This is Revenue’s appeal for the Assessment Year 2009-10 filed against the order of t…

ITO, Bangalore vs. M/S Netlogic Processors (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes whereas the revenue’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 294/BANG/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92C

…avour of the assessee by the judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Tata Elxsi Ltd. as reported in 349 ITR 98 and also by the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. HCL Technologies Ltd. as reported in 302 CTR 191. As per these judgments, it was held that total turnover is sum total of export turnover and domestic turnover and if an amount is reduced from export turnover then the total turnover also goes down by the same amount automatically. As per ground no. 4 raised by revenue in its appeal, this is the only grievance of the revenue that the expenditure…

Broadcom Semiconductors India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes whereas the revenue’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 236/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92C

…avour of the assessee by the judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Tata Elxsi Ltd. as reported in 349 ITR 98 and also by the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. HCL Technologies Ltd. as reported in 302 CTR 191. As per these judgments, it was held that total turnover is sum total of export turnover and domestic turnover and if an amount is reduced from export turnover then the total turnover also goes down by the same amount automatically. As per ground no. 4 raised by revenue in its appeal, this is the only grievance of the revenue that the expenditure…