THE COMMISSINOER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S KSHEMA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

section 10A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [‘the Act’, for short]. The Assessing Officer held that expenses incurred in foreign currency for providing software development services outside India of Rs.17,80,68

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIT(A) vs. M/S INFOSYS LTD

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA

Section 10A of the IT Act. 8. Placing reliance on HCL Technologies Ltd., Shri. Suryanarayana submitted that the 'export profit' has to be computed as per the formula extracted in para 18 of 5 [2014] 46 taxmann.com 68

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S. ONMOBILE GLOBAL LTD

In the result, the matter is remitted to the Tribunal to

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

Section 10A of the Act. Thus, the third substantial question of law is also answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. 12. The assessee has claimed an amount of Rs.6,68

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S TATA ELXSI LTD

In the result, the appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,E.S.INDIRESH

68,91,445/- by holding that the same can be considered as part of export turnover by relying upon the decision of this Hon’ble High Court in Wipro Ltd v/s CIT in ITA No.879 of 2008 dt: 25-3-2015 even though the assessing authority rightly reduced the said amount from export turnover since the said amount

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S BUSINESS PROCESS

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 10A of the IT Act are allowed only in Export Turnover but not from the Total Turnover then, it would give rise to inadvertent, unlawful, meaningless and illogical result which would cause grave injustice to the Respondent which could have never been the intention of the legislature. 20. Even in common parlance, when the object of the formula

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S BUSINESS PROCESS

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 10A of the IT Act are allowed only in Export Turnover but not from the Total Turnover then, it would give rise to inadvertent, unlawful, meaningless and illogical result which would cause grave injustice to the Respondent which could have never been the intention of the legislature. 20. Even in common parlance, when the object of the formula

SMT. S. JALAJA vs. UNION OF INDIA

In the result, writ appeals are allowed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

68. SRI. S.K. RAMAKRISHNA S/O LATE KALE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEAWRS RESIDING AT ALLAPATTANA VILLAGE SRIRANGAPATNA TLAUK (SITE NO.322, SY NO.49) 69. SRI. M. BASAVARAJAPPA S/O LAWTE UMA MAHESHWARAPPA 75 AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS NO.579, 14TH CROSS, 1ST MAIN, B.M. SHRENAGARA, METAGALLI POST, MYSURU 570016 (SITE NO.289, SY NO.49 70. SRI. M.C. VASUDEVA MURTHY S/O LATE M.G. CHKRAPANI

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S BELLAD and COMPANY

Appeal is allowed

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar Regular First Appeal No.100154 Of 2015 (Par/Pos) Between:

10A - 04 Gs AND: House, backyard, and Plot situated In Karlawad village. - Not Subject matter of suit in O.S.No.66/2003. e. Defendant No.1: Chouraddy Share:- * 4 Acres of land held jointly with bother - Not Subject matter - 45 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:6906 RFA No. 100154 of 2015 Hemaraddy-situated in Karlatti village, tal:Navalgund. of suit in O.S.No.66/2003