The Commissioner of Income-tax-­LTU, Mumbai v. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd
[Citation -2017-LL-1205-35]

Citation 2017-LL-1205-35
Appellant Name The Commissioner of Income-tax-­LTU, Mumbai
Respondent Name Tata Consultancy Services Ltd.
Court HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 05/12/2017
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags question of law • total turnover • set off • telecommunication expenses • benefit of exemption
Bot Summary: The Appellate Tribunal while dismissing the Appeal preferred by the Appellant Revenue first relied upon a decision of this Court in Income Tax Appeal No. 3474 of 2010 in the case of CIT vs Tata Infotech. As regards the other decision of the Court in the case of Gemplus Jewellery Ltd, he pointed out that an Appeal has been preferred by the Appellant Revenue being Civil Appeal No. 1 2010 233 CTR 248 2 of 4 ::: Uploaded on - 01/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/01/2018 09:36:39 ::: 1 itxa 269 2015 8492 of 2013 which is pending for final hearing before the Apex Court. As regards the second question of law, the Appellate Tribunal has followed the decision of Karnataka High Court dated 9 th August, 2011 in the case of CIT vs Yokogawa India Ltd. Similar view was taken by this Court in the case of Hindustan Unilever Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income tax 1(1), Mumbai. On the first question, the submission is that the Appeal requires consideration on the ground that an Appeal preferred by the Appellant Revenue against the decision of this Court in the case of Gemplus Jewellery Ltd.(supra) is pending before the Apex Court. So long as the decision of the Co ordinate Bench of this Court is not set aside by the higher Court, all Co ordinate Benches of this Court continue to be bound by the said decision. Even if a judgment of the Co ordinate bench is stayed by the higher Court, as far as this Court is concerned, it continues to be bound by the judgment. Ltd.4 has dealt with the issue of effect of the pending of Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court in the context of entertaining an application under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.


1 itxa 269 2015 rrpillai IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX Appeal NO. 269 OF 2015 Commissioner of IncomeTax LTU, Mumbai Appellant vs. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. Respondent Mr.A. R. Malhotra for Appellant. Mr. Dinesh Vyas, Senior Counsel a/w. Mr. Mandar Vaidya & Mr. Srihari Iyer for Respondent ....... CORAM : A.S. OKA & A.K. MENON, JJ. DATE : 5th DECEMBER, 2017 P. C. 1. Heard learned Counsel appearing for Appellant and learned Counsel appearing for Revenue. learned Counsel appearing for Appellant has pressed into service following substantial questions of law : (A) Whether on facts and in circumstance of case and in law Tribunal was right in holding that on sight consultancy services expenses of Rs.5,32,25,662/ , Telecommunication expenses of Rs.2,37,31,480/ , travel expenses of Rs.1,38,70,716/ , expenses borne by customers of Assessee Company on behalf of Assessee Company amounting to Rs.4,86,53,446/ , were to be reduced from Total Turnover while computing exemption u/s 10A of Income Tax Act? 1 of 4 ::: Uploaded on - 01/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/01/2018 09:36:39 ::: 1 itxa 269 2015 (B) Whether on facts and in circumstance of case and in law Tribunal was right in not allowing set off of loss incurred by Assessee Company from Non STPI Unit with profit of STPI Unit to arrive at profits of business eligible for exemption u/s 10A of Income Tax Act? 2. present Appeal takes exception to judgment and order dated 28th March, 2014 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal by which two Appeals preferred by Appellant Revenue for Assessment years 2003 04 and 2004 05 were decided. challenge in this Appeal is confined to Appeal pertaining to year 2004 05. Appellate Tribunal while dismissing Appeal preferred by Appellant Revenue first relied upon decision of this Court in Income Tax Appeal No. 3474 of 2010 in case of CIT vs Tata Infotech (amalgamated with Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. present respondent). This Court while deciding said case, relied upon decision in case of CIT vs. Gemplus Jewellery Ltd.1 Based on said decisions, first question of law which is pressed into service has been decided against Appellant Revenue. As far as decision in case of CIT vs Tata Infotech is concerned, learned Counsel appearing for Appellant Revenue stated that he could not get information whether said decision was challenged by Revenue. As regards other decision of Court in case of Gemplus Jewellery Ltd (supra), he pointed out that Appeal has been preferred by Appellant Revenue being Civil Appeal No. 1 [2010] 233 CTR 248 (Bom) 2 of 4 ::: Uploaded on - 01/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/01/2018 09:36:39 ::: 1 itxa 269 2015 8492 of 2013 which is pending for final hearing before Apex Court. However, there is no dispute that as of today, decisions of this Court in both cases stand. 3. As regards second question of law, Appellate Tribunal has followed decision of Karnataka High Court dated 9 th August, 2011 in case of CIT vs Yokogawa India Ltd. Similar view was taken by this Court in case of Hindustan Unilever Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income tax 1(1), Mumbai.2 It was fairly pointed out that decision of Karnataka High Court was carried to Apex Court and that Apex Court by its judgment in case of Commissioner of Income tax vs. Yokogawa India Ltd.3 confirmed view taken by Karnataka High Court. 4. On first question, submission is that Appeal requires consideration on ground that Appeal preferred by Appellant Revenue against decision of this Court in case of Gemplus Jewellery Ltd.(supra) is pending before Apex Court. 5. law is very well settled. So long as decision of Co ordinate Bench of this Court is not set aside by higher Court, all Co ordinate Benches of this Court continue to be bound by said decision. Even if judgment of Co ordinate bench is stayed by higher Court, as far as this Court is concerned, it continues to be bound by judgment. 2 [2010] 325 ITR 102 (Bombay) 3 [2017] 77 taxmann.com 41 (SC) 3 of 4 ::: Uploaded on - 01/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/01/2018 09:36:39 ::: 1 itxa 269 2015 6. Division Bench of this Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs Desai Bros. Ltd.4 has dealt with issue of effect of pending of Special Leave Petition before Apex Court in context of entertaining application under Section 256(2) of Income Tax Act, 1961. It was accepted position before Division Bench that issue which was sought to be raised by application filed by Revenue was already decided in case of CIT vs. Century Spg. & Mfg. Co. Ltd. 5 in favour of assessee by Division Bench of this Court. It was urged by revenue that Special Leave Petition against said decision of this Court was pending before Apex Court. This Court held that pendency of Special Leave Petition or Appeal before Apex Court is of no consequence as this Court continues to be bound by its own decision until it is set aside. 7. Therefore, in our view, no substantial question of law arises as both questions pressed into service have been already answered against Appellant. Accordingly, Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. (A.K. MENON, J.) (A.S. OKA, J.) 4 [1991] 189 ITR 88 (Bom) 5 [1978] 111 ITR 6 (Bom) 4 of 4 ::: Uploaded on - 01/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/01/2018 09:36:39 ::: TheCommissionerofIncome-tax-LTU,Mumbai v. TataConsultancyServicesLtd
Report Error