CIT v. Tata Elxsi Ltd.

349 ITR 98High Court2012#59 most cited

What is CIT v. Tata Elxsi Ltd. authority for?

When computing deduction under Section 10A, if communication or telecommunication expenses are excluded from export turnover, they must also be excluded from total turnover to maintain consistency and apply the ordinary meaning of 'turnover' in context.

818

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Tata Elxsi Ltd. · Section 10A · deduction u/s 10A · export turnover · total turnover · communication expenses · telecommunication expenses · exclusion from turnover · computation of deduction · consistency principle · Karnataka High Court

Also reported as

204 Taxmann 32117 Taxmann.com 100

Sections most often in play

Section 10ASection 234DSection 234BSection 234CSection 254(2)Section 28Section 10B(4)Section 133(6)

Issues it is cited on

section 10asection 10companyindiabusiness

Judgments citing CIT v. Tata Elxsi Ltd.

ITO vs. M/S Infinera India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 599/BANG/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Oct 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: S/Shri P.K.Prasad & Umashankar GautamFor Respondent: Shri P.Dhivahar, JCIT(DR)
Section 143(1)Section 92C

…re in foreign currency on travel, telecommunication and insurance both from export turnover as well as total turnover. This decision of the CIT(A) is consonance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Tata Elxsi (349 ITR 98). This ground of appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. 16. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed. CO No.158/Bang/2015: 17. The assessee raised the following cross objections: IT(TP)A No.599/Bang/2013 & CO No.158/Bang/2015 Page 14 of 16 18. Cross objection Nos.1 and 14 are general in nature and do not require any…

JCIT vs. M/S Dell International Services India

In the result, IT(TP)A No

ITA 1838/BANG/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Oct 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR), ITAT, Bengaluru
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 147

…allowed at a much lower sum than what was claimed by the Assessee. 9. Before CIT(Appeals), the reiterated submissions made before AO and further placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. Tata Elxsi Ltd [2012] 349 ITR 98 (Karn) wherein it was held that telecommunication charges should be excluded both from IT(TP)A Nos. 85 & 1026/B/14, 1838/B/13 & CO No.21/B/16 Page 6 of 36 the total turnover and export turnover while applying the formula u/s.10A(4) of the Act while allowing deduction u/s.10A of the Act. The CIT(A) accepted the alternative prayer of the Assessee…

The Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax CIT(A) vs. M/S. Infosys Bpo Ltd

ITA/334/2016HC Karnataka11 Oct 2017

Bench: L.NARAYANA SWAMY (AG.CJ),P.S.DINESH KUMAR

Section 260

…ITA No.334/2016 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.H.G.RAMESH ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.334/2016 BETWEEN : 1. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIT(A), 5TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING 80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA BANGALORE – 560 095 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), 2ND FLOOR…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-6(1)(2), Bangalore vs. M/S State Street Services India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 is dismissed

ITA 518/BANG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazthe Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle – 6(1)(2), Bengaluru. . Appellant Vs. M/S State Street India Services Pvt. Ltd., Rmz Infinity, 7Th Floor, Tower D, Old Madras Road, Bengaluru. . Respondent Pan – Aalcs1213K. Appellant By : Shri Smt. Padmameenakshi, Jcit Respondent By : Shri Sandeep H, C.A Date Of Hearing : 10-10-2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-10-2017 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Smt. Padmameenakshi, JCITFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep H, C.A
Section 10ASection 143(3)

…alore partly allowed the assessee’s appeal vide order dated 22.11.2016. In doing so, the ld. CIT(A) allowed the assessee’s claim for deduction u/s. 10A of the Act following the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v Tata Elxsi Ltd. (349 ITR 98) (Kar). 3.1 Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A)-6, Bangalore dated 22.11.2016 for Assessment Year 2009-10, Revenue has filed this appeal, raising the following grounds:- “1.The order of the CIT (Appeals) is opposed to law and the facts and circumstances of the case. ITA No.518/B/17 3 2. On the facts and in circumstances of the case, the CIT(…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-6(1)(2), Bangalore vs. M/S Swiss Re-Shared Services Pvt Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 is dismissed

ITA 515/BANG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazthe Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle – 6(1)(2), Bengaluru. . Appellant Vs. M/S Swiss Re-Shared Services Pvt. Ltd., No.21, Vaswani Centropolis, 2Nd To 6Th Floor, Langford Road, Langford Town, Bengaluru. . Respondent Pan – Aaecs8786L. Appellant By : Shri Smt. Padmameenakshi, Jcit Respondent By : Shri Keerthi Narayan, C.A Date Of Hearing : 10-10-2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-10-2017 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Smt. Padmameenakshi, JCITFor Respondent: Shri Keerthi Narayan, C.A
Section 10ASection 143(3)

…alore partly allowed the assessee’s appeal vide order dated 27.12.2016. In doing so, the ld. CIT(A) allowed the assessee’s claim for deduction u/s. 10A of the Act following the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v Tata Elxsi Ltd. (349 ITR 98) (Kar). 3.1 Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A)-6, Bangalore dated 27.12.2016 for Assessment Year 2009-10, Revenue has filed this appeal, raising the following grounds:- “1.The order of the CIT (Appeals) is opposed to law and the facts and circumstances of the case. ITA No.515/B/17 3 2. On the facts and in circumstances of the case, the CIT(…

Fair Issac India Software Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1522/BANG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A. K. Garodia

For Appellant: Shri. Priyam Singhania, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR-II
Section 10A

…rawn. 2. With regard to ground No.9, the learned counsel for the assessee has contended that this ground relate to deduction under section 10A of the IT Act and the issue is squarely covered by judgments of jurisdictional High Court in the case of Tata Elxsi 349 ITR 98. Therefore, the travel expenses incurred in foreign currency also be reduced from the total turnover in order to compute the deduction under section 10A of the Act. The learned DR did not object to the contentions of the assessee and we accordingly allow the ground of the assessee and direct the AO to reduce the travel expenses incurred in foreign…

M/S Ariba Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1592/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A.K. Garodia

For Appellant: S/Shri P.K. Prasad & Shri Umashankar GautamFor Respondent: Smt. H.L Sowmya, Addl. CIT(DR) ITAT, Bengaluru
Section 10A

…g/2014 2. This appeal is preferred by the revenue against the order of CIT(Appeals) on a solitary ground that the CIT(Appeals) has erred in directing the AO to follow the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Tata Elxsi Ltd., 349 ITR 98 and exclude the internet expenses and expenses incurred in foreign currency on travel from the total turnover also while computing the deduction u/s. 10A of the Act, without appreciating the fact that there is no provision in section 10A that such expenses should be reduced from the total turnover also, as clause (iv) of the Explanation to section…

ITO, Bangalore vs. M/S Ariba Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1540/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A.K. Garodia

For Appellant: S/Shri P.K. Prasad & Shri Umashankar GautamFor Respondent: Smt. H.L Sowmya, Addl. CIT(DR) ITAT, Bengaluru
Section 10A

…g/2014 2. This appeal is preferred by the revenue against the order of CIT(Appeals) on a solitary ground that the CIT(Appeals) has erred in directing the AO to follow the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Tata Elxsi Ltd., 349 ITR 98 and exclude the internet expenses and expenses incurred in foreign currency on travel from the total turnover also while computing the deduction u/s. 10A of the Act, without appreciating the fact that there is no provision in section 10A that such expenses should be reduced from the total turnover also, as clause (iv) of the Explanation to section…

M/S Crossdomain Solutions Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal for the asst

ITA 429/BANG/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Oct 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazita Nos.429 & 430/Bang/2017 (Asst. Year – 2007-08 & 2010-11) The Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle – 2(1)(1), Bengaluru. . Appellant Vs. M/S Crossdomain Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Cenex, 94, 2Nd Main, Industrial Suburb Ii Stage, Yeshwanthpur, Bengaluru. . Respondent Pan – Aaccc1271G Appellant By : Shri L.V Bhaskar Reddy, Addl. Cit Respondent By : Shri Ashwin Rao, C.A Date Of Hearing : 5-10-2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 6-10-2017 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri L.V Bhaskar Reddy, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Ashwin Rao, C.A
Section 10BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)

…ee’s appeals, inter alia, in respect of its claim for deduction u/s 10B of the Act following the judicial pronouncements rendered on this issue by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Yokogawa India Ltd., (341 ITR 385) and Tata Elxsi Ltd., (349 ITR 98). 4.1 Aggrieved by the combined orders of the CIT-2, Bangalore dated 24/7/2015 for both asst. years 2007-08 and 2010-11, Revenue has filed these appeals raising the following identical grounds for both asst. years:- ITA Nos.429-430/B/17 5 “1) The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case and hence not sustai…

The ACIT, Trivandrum vs. M/S. Paragon Biomedical India (P) Ltd, Trivandrum

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal filed

ITA 334/COCH/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri P B Bansal & George George K, Jm

Section 10ASection 10A(2)(i)Section 10BSection 14

…ing about parity between the numerator and the denominator. For the above proposition, the Ld. AR relied on the following judicial pronouncements: 1. CIT vs. Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd. (2011) 233 CTR 248 (Bom.) 2. CIT vs. Tata Elxsi Ltd. an Others (2011) 247 CTR 334 (Kar.) 3. ITO vs. SAKSoft Ltd. (2009) 121 TTJ 0865 (ITAT,Chennai (SB). 4. Sanyo LSI Technologies India Private Limited vs. DCIT: ITA No.977/Bang/2010 dated 13th May 2011 (ITAT Bangalore Bench) 5. CIT vs. Pentasoft Technologies Ltd. (2012) 347 ITR 578 (Mad.) 6.5 The Ld. DR supported the orders of Income Tax authorities. 6.6 We have heard the ri…

M/S. Clinipace Clinical Research P. Ltd(Formerly Paragon Bio Medical P. Ltd, Trivandrum vs. The ACIT, Trivandrum

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal filed

ITA 297/COCH/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri P B Bansal & George George K, Jm

Section 10ASection 10A(2)(i)Section 10BSection 14

…ing about parity between the numerator and the denominator. For the above proposition, the Ld. AR relied on the following judicial pronouncements: 1. CIT vs. Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd. (2011) 233 CTR 248 (Bom.) 2. CIT vs. Tata Elxsi Ltd. an Others (2011) 247 CTR 334 (Kar.) 3. ITO vs. SAKSoft Ltd. (2009) 121 TTJ 0865 (ITAT,Chennai (SB). 4. Sanyo LSI Technologies India Private Limited vs. DCIT: ITA No.977/Bang/2010 dated 13th May 2011 (ITAT Bangalore Bench) 5. CIT vs. Pentasoft Technologies Ltd. (2012) 347 ITR 578 (Mad.) 6.5 The Ld. DR supported the orders of Income Tax authorities. 6.6 We have heard the ri…

The ACIT, Trivandrum vs. M/S. Paragon Biomedical India (P) Ltd, Trivandrum

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal filed

ITA 249/COCH/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri P B Bansal & George George K, Jm

Section 10ASection 10A(2)(i)Section 10BSection 14

…ing about parity between the numerator and the denominator. For the above proposition, the Ld. AR relied on the following judicial pronouncements: 1. CIT vs. Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd. (2011) 233 CTR 248 (Bom.) 2. CIT vs. Tata Elxsi Ltd. an Others (2011) 247 CTR 334 (Kar.) 3. ITO vs. SAKSoft Ltd. (2009) 121 TTJ 0865 (ITAT,Chennai (SB). 4. Sanyo LSI Technologies India Private Limited vs. DCIT: ITA No.977/Bang/2010 dated 13th May 2011 (ITAT Bangalore Bench) 5. CIT vs. Pentasoft Technologies Ltd. (2012) 347 ITR 578 (Mad.) 6.5 The Ld. DR supported the orders of Income Tax authorities. 6.6 We have heard the ri…

M/S Thomson Reuters India Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 1565/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR-II)
Section 10ASection 10A(2)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 7A

…t. Ground no. 8 is partly allowed. 8. Regarding ground no. 9, it was agreed by both sides that ground no. 9(C) is covered in favour 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 it was agreed by ld. AR of assessee that if the issue involved in ground no. 9(C) is decided in favour of the assessee then remaining part of ground no. 9 is not pressed. IT(TP)A Nos. 1352/Bang/2010 &1565/Bang/2012 Page 8 of 13 9. We have considered the rival submissions and we hold that the expenses reduced by the AO from export turnover sho…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore vs. M/S. Toshiba Software India Pvt. Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 1814/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri R.N. Parbat, CIT (D.R)For Respondent: Shri R. Dhiraj, Advocate
Section 10A

…)A No.1814/Bang/2016 amount should also be reduced from total turnover while computing the deduction under section 10A of the Act, is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Tata Elxsi Ltd. 349 ITR 98 (Kar). The decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court has been followed in a number of cases in co- ordinate benches of ITAT. Hence, this issue is decided against the revenue and in favour of assessee. 5. In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 27th Sept., 2017. (INTURI RAMA RAO) Judicial Me…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore vs. M/S. Akamai Technologies India Pvt Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the revenue’s appeal as well as C

ITA 1356/BANG/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep H Huilgol, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Nambirajan, Addl. CIT (D.R)
Section 10A

…ort turnover an equal amount should also be reduced from total turnover while computing the deduction under section 10A of the Act, is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Tata Elxsi Ltd. 349 ITR 98 (Kar). The decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court has been followed in a number of cases in co-ordinate benches of ITAT. Hence, this issue is decided against the revenue and in favour of assessee. 5. In the result, the revenue’s appeal as well as C.O. of assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 27th Sept., 2017. (INTU…

Mindteck (India) Limited, Bangalore vs. Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the Revenue and assessee and C

ITA 50/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri J. Sudhakar Reddyit(Tp)A Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year 426/Bang/2015 Assistant Commissioner Of Mindteck (India) Ltd., 2010-11 Income Tax, Prestige Atlanta, Circle 12(1), No.10, Industrial Layout, 7Th Main, 80 Ft. Road, Bengaluru 3Rd Block,Bengaluru-560034. Pan : Aaach1072Q 50/Bang/2015 Mindteck (India) Ltd., Assistant Commissioner Of 2010-11 Bengaluru. Income Tax, Circle 4(1)(2), No.14/3, Pan : Aaach1072Q 4Th Floor, Rastrothana Bhavan, (Opp Rbi), Nrupathunga Road, Bengaluru-560001. C.O. No. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year 37/Bang/2016 M/S. Mindteck (India) Assistant Commissioner 2010-11 Ltd., Bengaluru Of Income Tax, [In It(Tp)A Pan : Aaach1072Q Circle 12(1), No.426/Bang/2016] Bengaluru. Assessee/C.O. By : Shri. Sampath Raghunathan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. G. R. Reddy, Cit-Dr-I

For Respondent: Shri. G. R. Reddy, CIT-DR-I
Section 10A

…vices Ltd on the basis of different function, while the comparable is qualifying all the qualitative and quantitative filters applied by the TPO. 3. Ground No.1 is stated to be covered by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Tata Elxsi Ltd., Vs. DCIT 349 ITR 98. Moreover, the DRP had adjudicated this ground in the light of judgment of jurisdictional High Court in the case of Tata Elxsi IT(TP)A No. 426/Bang/2015, 50/Bang/2015 & C.O. No. 37/Bang/2016 Page 3 of 18 and the AO has passed the consequential order. Therefore, no interference in this assessment order is called for. Accordingly, we reject this g…

Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore vs. M/S Mindteck (India) Limited, Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the Revenue and assessee and C

ITA 426/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri J. Sudhakar Reddyit(Tp)A Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year 426/Bang/2015 Assistant Commissioner Of Mindteck (India) Ltd., 2010-11 Income Tax, Prestige Atlanta, Circle 12(1), No.10, Industrial Layout, 7Th Main, 80 Ft. Road, Bengaluru 3Rd Block,Bengaluru-560034. Pan : Aaach1072Q 50/Bang/2015 Mindteck (India) Ltd., Assistant Commissioner Of 2010-11 Bengaluru. Income Tax, Circle 4(1)(2), No.14/3, Pan : Aaach1072Q 4Th Floor, Rastrothana Bhavan, (Opp Rbi), Nrupathunga Road, Bengaluru-560001. C.O. No. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year 37/Bang/2016 M/S. Mindteck (India) Assistant Commissioner 2010-11 Ltd., Bengaluru Of Income Tax, [In It(Tp)A Pan : Aaach1072Q Circle 12(1), No.426/Bang/2016] Bengaluru. Assessee/C.O. By : Shri. Sampath Raghunathan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. G. R. Reddy, Cit-Dr-I

For Respondent: Shri. G. R. Reddy, CIT-DR-I
Section 10A

…vices Ltd on the basis of different function, while the comparable is qualifying all the qualitative and quantitative filters applied by the TPO. 3. Ground No.1 is stated to be covered by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Tata Elxsi Ltd., Vs. DCIT 349 ITR 98. Moreover, the DRP had adjudicated this ground in the light of judgment of jurisdictional High Court in the case of Tata Elxsi IT(TP)A No. 426/Bang/2015, 50/Bang/2015 & C.O. No. 37/Bang/2016 Page 3 of 18 and the AO has passed the consequential order. Therefore, no interference in this assessment order is called for. Accordingly, we reject this g…

DCIT vs. M/S Misys Software Solutions (India), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of revenue as well as C

ITA 1071/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Singh, CIT (D.R)For Respondent: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Advocate
Section 133(6)Section 92C

…ort turnover an equal amount should also be reduced from total turnover while computing the deduction under section 10A of the Act, is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Tata Elxsi Ltd. 349 ITR 98 (Kar). The decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court is a binding precedent for the Bangalore Bench 9 IT(TP)A No.1071/Bang/2013 & C.O. No.22/Bang/2016 of the Tribunal. Hence, this issue is decided against the revenue and in favour of assessee. 6. The rest of the grounds of the revenue’s appeal and the grounds raised in the cross objection by…

Income-Tax Officer, Bangalore vs. M/S.Kennametal Shared Services Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 1547/BANG/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Biju, JCIT (DR) (ITAT)-3, BengaluruFor Respondent: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, Advocate
Section 10A

…turnover an equal amount should also be reduced from total turnover while computing the deduction under section 10A of the Act, is covered 3 in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Tata Elxsi Ltd. 349 ITR 98 (Kar). The decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court is a binding precedent for the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal. Hence, this issue is decided against the revenue and in favour of assessee. 5. In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on the 22nd day of Sept.,2017. (JASON P BOAZ) Judicial Member…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S Igate Global Solutions Ltd

ITA/87/2016HC Karnataka12 Sept 2017

Bench: K.S.MUDAGAL,H.G.RAMESH

Section 260

…SH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT H.G.RAMESH, J. (Oral): Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants fairly submits that the question raised in this appeal is answered against the appellants by this Court in CIT v. Tata Elxsi Ltd. [(2012) 349 ITR 98 (Karn)]. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE KSR…