Convergys India Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax
[Citation -2013-LL-1213-195]
Citation | 2013-LL-1213-195 |
---|---|
Appellant Name | Convergys India Services Pvt. Ltd. |
Respondent Name | Commissioner of Income-tax |
Court | SUPREME COURT |
Relevant Act | Income-tax |
Date of Order | 13/12/2013 |
Judgment | View Judgment |
Keyword Tags | exchange fluctuation • income from business • foreign exchange • working capital • memo of appeal • other source |
Bot Summary: | UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following ORDER In C.I.T.-II, Ahmedabad, Gujarat vs. M/s. Mastek Ltd., a three-Judge Bench of this Court in the order dated 4.3.2013 observed as follows: We find that appeal filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been admitted by the High Court and two substantial questions of law have been framed for consideration of the appeal. The grievance of the Revenue is that by necessary implication, the other questions raised in the memo of appeal before the High Court have been rejected. The proviso following the main provision of Section 260A(4) of the Act states that nothing stated in sub-section, i.e., 'The appeal shall be heard only on the question so formulated' shall be deemed to take away or abridge the power of the Court to hear, for reasons to be recorded, the appeal on any other substantial question of law not formulated by it, if it is satisfied that the case involves such question. The High Court's power to frame substantial question(s) of law at the time of hearing of the appeal other than the questions on which appeal has been admitted remains under Section 260A(4). Mr. C.S. Agarwal, learned senior counsel of the petitioner submits that appeal being I.T.A. No. 1056 of 2011 is pending before the High Court on one substantial question of law. Mr. Gourab Banerji, learned Additional Solicitor General for the Revenue has no objection if the grievance of the petitioner is considered by the High Court in light of the observations made by this Court in the order dated 4.3.2013 in Mastek Ltd. 5. Having considered the above submissions, we observed that the High Court shall keep in view the order dated 4.3.2013 passed by this Court in Mastek Ltd. which has been quoted above while considering whether or not the above two questions of law which the petitioner intends to press for consideration by the High Court need to be framed at the time of hearing of the appeal. |