The Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalore / The Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, Cirlce 11(4), Bangalore v. M/s. Himatsingka Seide Ltd
[Citation -2014-LL-1216-5]

Citation 2014-LL-1216-5
Appellant Name The Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalore / The Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, Cirlce 11(4), Bangalore
Respondent Name M/s. Himatsingka Seide Ltd.
Court HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 16/12/2014
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags computing deduction • insurance expenses • total turnover
Bot Summary: Allow the appeal and set aside the order dated 21/09/2011 passed by the ITAT, Bangalore in 2 ITA No.69/Bang/2010 and confirm the order of the Appellate Commissioner confirming the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 11(4), Bangalore, in the interest of justice and equity. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that turnover of any Seide division is to be taken into account for computing deduction u/s.80HHC of the Act inspite of the provisions 3 of Section 80HHC(3) providing for the total turnover of the assessee 3. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee is entitled to claim deduction u/s.80HHC of the Act on a portion of the profit attributable to the Filati unit which is eligible for deduction u/s.10B of the Act 3. Vs. Tata Elxsi Ltd. Ors, reported in 65 DTR 206, where the said substantial question of law was answered in favour of the assessee. Following the said judgment in this case also, the first substantial question of law is answered in favour of the assessee. Insofar as substantial questions of law 2 and 3 are concerned, in the assessee s case itself for the earlier assessment years in ITA Nos.51/2009, 59/2009 and 60/2009 decided on 14.11.2014, this Court has answered the said substantial questions of law in favour of the assessee by a considered order. Following the said judgment in this case also, the aforesaid two questions of law are answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.


IN HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2014 PRESENT HON BLE MR.JUSTICE N KUMAR AND HON BLE MR.JUSTICE B.MANOHAR ITA NO.26 OF 2012 BETWEEN 1.THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX C R BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE 2.THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 11 (4) C R BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI K V ARAVIND, ADV.) AND M/S HIMATSINGKA SEIDE LTD NO.10/24, KUMARA KRUPA ROAD, HIGH GROUNDS, BANGALORE 560 001 ... RESPONDENT (BY SMT VANI H, ADV.) This ITA is filed U/S.260-A of I.T. Act, 1961 arising out of Order dated 21-09-2011 passed in ITA No.69/Bang/2010, for Assessment Year 2004- 2005, praying that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to: i. formulate substantial questions of law stated therein, ii. allow appeal and set aside order dated 21/09/2011 passed by ITAT, Bangalore in 2 ITA No.69/Bang/2010 and confirm order of Appellate Commissioner confirming order passed by Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 11(4), Bangalore, in interest of justice and equity. This appeal coming on for orders this day, N KUMAR J., delivered following: JUDGMENT Revenue has preferred this appeal against order passed by Tribunal granting relief to assessee. 2. Three substantial questions of law do arise for consideration in this appeal: 1. Whether Tribunal was correct in holding that freight and insurance expenses are required to be reduced from total turnover also in absence of any provisions to this effect in section 10B of Act and in view of jurisdictional High Court judgment in case of assessee for earlier assessment year in ITRC No.350/1998 DD 04.08.2006? 2. Whether Tribunal was correct in holding that turnover of any Seide division is to be taken into account for computing deduction u/s.80HHC of Act inspite of provisions 3 of Section 80HHC(3) providing for total turnover of assessee? 3. Whether Tribunal was correct in holding that assessee is entitled to claim deduction u/s.80HHC of Act on portion of profit attributable to Filati unit which is eligible for deduction u/s.10B of Act? 3. Insofar as first substantial question of law is concerned, this Court had occasion to consider same in case of Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. Vs. Tata Elxsi Ltd. & Ors, reported in (2012) 65 DTR (Kar) 206, where said substantial question of law was answered in favour of assessee. Following said judgment in this case also, first substantial question of law is answered in favour of assessee. However, Revenue has preferred appeal against said order before Hon ble Apex Court, which is pending consideration. In event of Revenue succeeding before Hon ble Apex Court, then assessing authority 4 shall pass consequential orders in terms of Section 260(1A) of Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. Insofar as substantial questions of law 2 and 3 are concerned, in assessee s case itself for earlier assessment years in ITA Nos.51/2009, 59/2009 and 60/2009 decided on 14.11.2014, this Court has answered said substantial questions of law in favour of assessee by considered order. Following said judgment in this case also, aforesaid two questions of law are answered in favour of assessee and against Revenue. 5. In that view of matter, we do not see any merit in this appeal. Accordingly appeal is dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE JT/- Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalore / Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, Cirlce 11(4), Bangalore v. M/s. Himatsingka Seide Ltd
Report Error