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 366,470 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.

M/S. Transworld Ict Solutions (P) Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal for Assessment Year 2005-06 is partly allowed

ITA 1305/BANG/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Mar 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A Nos.1305 To 1308/Bang/2010 Assessment Years : 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 Dcit, M/S. Transworld Ict Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Vs. No.15, Hoody, Whitefield Road, Central Circle – 2(1), Mahadevapura Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 3824 F Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. G. S. Prashanth, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Dilip, Advocate, Standing Counsel For Department Date Of Hearing : 03.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. G. S. Prashanth, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Dilip, Advocate, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 92C(2)

…section 10A of the Act whereby the AO reduced delivery charges from the export turnover without excluding the same from the total turnover. This issue is no longer res integra and has been settled by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Tata Elxsi 349 ITR 98 (Karnataka) wherein it was held that whatever is excluded from the Export turnover should also be excluded from the total turnover. Moreover, the order of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. HCL Technologies Ltd. in Civil Appeal No.8489-98490 of 2013 & Ors. dated 24.04.2018. The order…

M/S. Vantage Agora Marketing Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 12(5), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 373/BANG/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Vantage Agora Marketing Pvt. Ltd., # Pixel Park-A, 4Th Floor, The Deputy Pes Institute Of Commissioner Of Technology, Income Tax, Vs. Hosur Road, Electronic Circle – 12(5), City, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 100. Pan: Aaccv1443P Appellant Respondent : Shri V. Chandrashekar, Assessee By Advocate : Smt. Priyadarshini Revenue By Basaganni, Jcit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 30-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 30/03/2016 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), Mysore For Assessment Year 2009-10 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Hon'Ble Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Mysuru, Insofar As It Is Against The Appellant, Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Natural Justice, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case.

For Respondent: Shri V. Chandrashekar
Section 10ASection 234CSection 72

…ication expenses and foreign currency expenses for the purposes of Total Turnover. In this regard, reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Karnataka rendered in the case of CIT & Another Vs. TATA Elxsi Ltd., reported in 349 ITR 98, wherein the Hon’ble Court in their judgment held as follows: “The components of the export turnover in the numerator and the denominator cannot be different. Therefore, though there is no definition of the term “total turnover” in section 10A, there is nothing in the section to mandate that, what is excluded from the numerator that is export turn…

American Power Conversion (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Addl.C.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated herein above

ITA 1111/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 1111/Bang/2012 Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, CA
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A No. 1111/Bang/2012 Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/s. Schneider Electric IT Business India Pvt. Ltd., [formerly known as The Additional American Power Commissioner of Conversion (India) Pvt. Income Tax, Ltd.] LTU, 187/3 & 188/3, Jigani, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 562 106. PAN: AACCA6398Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Ketan Ved, CA : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Revenue by CIT DR (OSD) Date of Hearing : 20-12-2021 Date of Pronouncement : 28-02-2022 ORDER PER BE…

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

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 655/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.574/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kalyani Platina – Block I, 3Rd Floor, 24, Epip Circle -7(1)(1), Zone, Phase – 2Nd, Whitefield, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent C.O.No.127/Bang/2015 (In It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015) Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Cross Objector Respondent It(Tp)A No.655/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bengaluru – 560 066. Circle -7(1)(1), Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Bengaluru. Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92C

…s claimed by the Assessee but the AO did not do so in the final assessment order. We are of the view that the DRP’s directions are in accordance with the aforesaid binding decision of the jurisdictional High Court in CIT v. Tata Elxsi Ltd., reported in [2012] 349 ITR 98 (Kar) which subsequently came to be upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. HCL Technologies Ltd. 404 ITR 719 (SC). Therefore, in the light of the above judgment, the Assessee’s ground is allowed. 71. As far as Ground No.D 1 is concerned, the same is consequential to the order in AY 2009-10 and therefore the Assessee is entitled…

Ul India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 574/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.574/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kalyani Platina – Block I, 3Rd Floor, 24, Epip Circle -7(1)(1), Zone, Phase – 2Nd, Whitefield, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent C.O.No.127/Bang/2015 (In It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015) Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Cross Objector Respondent It(Tp)A No.655/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bengaluru – 560 066. Circle -7(1)(1), Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Bengaluru. Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92C

…s claimed by the Assessee but the AO did not do so in the final assessment order. We are of the view that the DRP’s directions are in accordance with the aforesaid binding decision of the jurisdictional High Court in CIT v. Tata Elxsi Ltd., reported in [2012] 349 ITR 98 (Kar) which subsequently came to be upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. HCL Technologies Ltd. 404 ITR 719 (SC). Therefore, in the light of the above judgment, the Assessee’s ground is allowed. 71. As far as Ground No.D 1 is concerned, the same is consequential to the order in AY 2009-10 and therefore the Assessee is entitled…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S U.L. India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 378/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.574/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kalyani Platina – Block I, 3Rd Floor, 24, Epip Circle -7(1)(1), Zone, Phase – 2Nd, Whitefield, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent C.O.No.127/Bang/2015 (In It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015) Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Cross Objector Respondent It(Tp)A No.655/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bengaluru – 560 066. Circle -7(1)(1), Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Bengaluru. Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92C

…s claimed by the Assessee but the AO did not do so in the final assessment order. We are of the view that the DRP’s directions are in accordance with the aforesaid binding decision of the jurisdictional High Court in CIT v. Tata Elxsi Ltd., reported in [2012] 349 ITR 98 (Kar) which subsequently came to be upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. HCL Technologies Ltd. 404 ITR 719 (SC). Therefore, in the light of the above judgment, the Assessee’s ground is allowed. 71. As far as Ground No.D 1 is concerned, the same is consequential to the order in AY 2009-10 and therefore the Assessee is entitled…

Addl. C.I.T., Bangalore vs. M/S Abb Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed and the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 335/BANG/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2007-08 M/S. Abb Ltd., 49, Khanija Bhavan, The Addl. Race Course Road, Commissioner Of 2Nd Floor, East Wing, Income-Tax (Ltu), Bangalore – 560 001. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaaca3834B Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2007-08 (By Revenue)

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel, Advocate
Section 10ASection 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2007-08 M/s. ABB Ltd., 49, Khanija Bhavan, The Addl. Race Course Road, Commissioner of 2nd Floor, East Wing, Income-tax (LTU), Bangalore – 560 001. Bangalore. Vs. PAN: AAACA3834B APPELLANT RESPONDENT & Assessment Year : 2007-08 (By Revenue) Assessee by : Ms. Vasanti Patel, Advocate : Shri Dilip, Standing Counsel Revenue by for Dept. Date of Hearing : 13-01-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 24-02-2022 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present cross appe…

Abb Limited, Bangalore vs. Addl.C.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed and the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 317/BANG/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2007-08 M/S. Abb Ltd., 49, Khanija Bhavan, The Addl. Race Course Road, Commissioner Of 2Nd Floor, East Wing, Income-Tax (Ltu), Bangalore – 560 001. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaaca3834B Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2007-08 (By Revenue)

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel, Advocate
Section 10ASection 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2007-08 M/s. ABB Ltd., 49, Khanija Bhavan, The Addl. Race Course Road, Commissioner of 2nd Floor, East Wing, Income-tax (LTU), Bangalore – 560 001. Bangalore. Vs. PAN: AAACA3834B APPELLANT RESPONDENT & Assessment Year : 2007-08 (By Revenue) Assessee by : Ms. Vasanti Patel, Advocate : Shri Dilip, Standing Counsel Revenue by for Dept. Date of Hearing : 13-01-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 24-02-2022 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present cross appe…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore vs. M/S Xchanging Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 837/BANG/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Feb 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year :2005-06 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Xchanging Solutions Ltd., Circle – 7(1)(2), (Formerly Cambridge Solutions Ltd.,) Bengaluru. Sjr Ipark (Opp. Satya Sai Hospital), 13, 14, 15 Epip Park, Whitefield, Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aafcs 9303 L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Nirmal Mathew, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 16.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02.2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Nirmal Mathew, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10A

…ion under section 10A of the Act was allowed at a Page 3 of 5 sum lesser than what was claimed by the assessee. On appeal by the assessee, the CIT(A), following the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Tata Elxsi Ltd., 349 ITR 98, directed the AO to exclude telecommunication expenses both from the export turnover and the total turnover. Since the CIT(A) has adjudicated the issue following the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court, no interference in his order is called for and accordingly we confirm the order of the CIT(A). Moreover, the order of the Hon’ble Karnataka…

M/S. Gangagen Biotechnologies Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 362/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessmentyear: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri S. Parthasarathi, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 263

…e A.O. should have set off the brought forward losses before allowing deduction u/s 10B of the Act. Further, we notice that the assessee had placed reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Tata Elxsi Ltd. (2012) 349 ITR 98 (Karn.) in order to contend that the setting off of brought forward loss is not required for the purpose of computing deduction u/s 10B of the Act. We notice that the Ld. Principal CIT did not follow the binding decision of the jurisdictional High Court by observing that the issue is still not reached finality as the matter is pending before Hon’b…

M/S Gangagen Biotechnologies Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. Pr. CIT, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 941/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessmentyear: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri S. Parthasarathi, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 263

…e A.O. should have set off the brought forward losses before allowing deduction u/s 10B of the Act. Further, we notice that the assessee had placed reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Tata Elxsi Ltd. (2012) 349 ITR 98 (Karn.) in order to contend that the setting off of brought forward loss is not required for the purpose of computing deduction u/s 10B of the Act. We notice that the Ld. Principal CIT did not follow the binding decision of the jurisdictional High Court by observing that the issue is still not reached finality as the matter is pending before Hon’b…

M/S First American (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-11(3), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 43/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-I(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10A

…at if the said amounts were to be reduced from its export turnover, then they should also be reduced from its total turnover in IT(TP)A No.43/Bang/2014 Page 22 of 23 terms of the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in CIT v. Tata Elxsi Ltd. [2012] 349 ITR 98 (Kar). The CIT(A) accepted the Assessee’s contention by following the aforesaid decision in CIT v. Tata Elxsi Ltd. and directed the AO to reduce the above expenses both from the export turnover as well as the total turnover. In these grounds, the Revenue is challenging the CIT(A)’s order to the above extent. We are of the view that the CIT(A)’s or…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bengaluru vs. M/S First American (India) Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2586/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-I(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10A

…at if the said amounts were to be reduced from its export turnover, then they should also be reduced from its total turnover in IT(TP)A No.43/Bang/2014 Page 22 of 23 terms of the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in CIT v. Tata Elxsi Ltd. [2012] 349 ITR 98 (Kar). The CIT(A) accepted the Assessee’s contention by following the aforesaid decision in CIT v. Tata Elxsi Ltd. and directed the AO to reduce the above expenses both from the export turnover as well as the total turnover. In these grounds, the Revenue is challenging the CIT(A)’s order to the above extent. We are of the view that the CIT(A)’s or…

Xchanging Solutions Limited, Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

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

ITA 556/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Raghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arunkumar, CIT(DR)(TP)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10ASection 10A(4)Section 143(3)Section 155

…ting deduction under Section 10A of the Act for Bangalore BPO unit (10A unit). 4.2 The learned AO has erred in law and on facts, by not following the jurisdictional ruling of the Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT and ACIT vs. Tata Elxsi Ltd and others (349 ITR 98) which has upheld the principle of parity between numerator and denominator in the formula prescribed under Section 10A(4) of the Act. 5. Reduction of expenditure incurred in foreign currency from Export turnover and Total turnover though the Appellant is not engaged in rendering technical services The learned AO has erred in law and on facts, b…

ITO, Bangalore vs. M/S Xchanging Solutions Ltd., Bangalore

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

ITA 402/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Raghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arunkumar, CIT(DR)(TP)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10ASection 10A(4)Section 143(3)Section 155

…ting deduction under Section 10A of the Act for Bangalore BPO unit (10A unit). 4.2 The learned AO has erred in law and on facts, by not following the jurisdictional ruling of the Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT and ACIT vs. Tata Elxsi Ltd and others (349 ITR 98) which has upheld the principle of parity between numerator and denominator in the formula prescribed under Section 10A(4) of the Act. 5. Reduction of expenditure incurred in foreign currency from Export turnover and Total turnover though the Appellant is not engaged in rendering technical services The learned AO has erred in law and on facts, b…

Xchanging Solutions Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 492/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Raghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arunkumar, CIT(DR)(TP)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10ASection 10A(4)Section 143(3)Section 155

…ting deduction under Section 10A of the Act for Bangalore BPO unit (10A unit). 4.2 The learned AO has erred in law and on facts, by not following the jurisdictional ruling of the Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT and ACIT vs. Tata Elxsi Ltd and others (349 ITR 98) which has upheld the principle of parity between numerator and denominator in the formula prescribed under Section 10A(4) of the Act. 5. Reduction of expenditure incurred in foreign currency from Export turnover and Total turnover though the Appellant is not engaged in rendering technical services The learned AO has erred in law and on facts, b…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Xchanging Solutions Ltd., Bangalore

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

ITA 459/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Raghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arunkumar, CIT(DR)(TP)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10ASection 10A(4)Section 143(3)Section 155

…ting deduction under Section 10A of the Act for Bangalore BPO unit (10A unit). 4.2 The learned AO has erred in law and on facts, by not following the jurisdictional ruling of the Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT and ACIT vs. Tata Elxsi Ltd and others (349 ITR 98) which has upheld the principle of parity between numerator and denominator in the formula prescribed under Section 10A(4) of the Act. 5. Reduction of expenditure incurred in foreign currency from Export turnover and Total turnover though the Appellant is not engaged in rendering technical services The learned AO has erred in law and on facts, b…

Textron India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed

ITA 678/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.678/Bang/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Sumeeth Khurana, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R (OSD)
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 40

…e purchase expenses, even though it has been capitalised by the assessee. In respect of deduction u/s 10A altered by the AO, the Ld DRP directed the AO to follow the decision rendered by jurisdictional Karnataka High Court in the case of Tata Elxsi Ltd (2012)(349 ITR 98)(Kar) and deducted the expenses from both export turnover and total turnover while computing deduction u/s 10A of the Act. 8. However, it appears that the TPO has given relief on account of risk adjustment. However, the AO retained the addition towards IT(TP)A No.594 & 678/Bang/2016 CO No.22/Bang/2017 M/s. Textron India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Pag…

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed

ITA 594/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.678/Bang/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Sumeeth Khurana, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R (OSD)
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 40

…e purchase expenses, even though it has been capitalised by the assessee. In respect of deduction u/s 10A altered by the AO, the Ld DRP directed the AO to follow the decision rendered by jurisdictional Karnataka High Court in the case of Tata Elxsi Ltd (2012)(349 ITR 98)(Kar) and deducted the expenses from both export turnover and total turnover while computing deduction u/s 10A of the Act. 8. However, it appears that the TPO has given relief on account of risk adjustment. However, the AO retained the addition towards IT(TP)A No.594 & 678/Bang/2016 CO No.22/Bang/2017 M/s. Textron India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Pag…

San Disk India Device Design Centre Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

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

ITA 543/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sunil Kumar Singh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 154Section 92C

…he Assessee's alternate contention and held that the IT(TP)A Nos.543, 341/Bang/2015 Page 27 of 36 said expenses ought to be reduced from its export and total turnovers by following the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in CIT v. Tata Elxsi Ltd. (349 ITR 98). Further, as for the unrealised export sales and forex loss, the DRP followed the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd. (341 ITR 385) and held that the AO was not correct in excluding the said amounts from the Assessee's gross total income and then calculating the deduction allowable to it under Secti…