Commissioner of Income-ta, Bengaluru-III / Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-12(3), Bengaluru v. Seimens Information Processing Services Pvt. Ltd - 2020-LL-0625-12

Citation	2020-LL-0625-12
Appellant Name	Commissioner of Income-ta, Bengaluru-III / Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-12(3), Bengaluru
Respondent Name	Seimens Information Processing Services Pvt. Ltd.
Court	HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Relevant Act	Income-tax
Date of Order	25/06/2020
Assessment Year	2006-07
Judgment	View Judgment
Keyword Tags	telecommunication charges • computation of deduction • export turnover • total turnover • low tax effect
Bot Summary:	3 Sri T. Suryanarayana, learned counsel for the respondent assessee. This appeal is filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Revenue, being aggrieved by the order dated 29.06.2012 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru, in ITA.No. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in holding that telecommunication charges amounting to Rs.3,02,49,251 and travel expenses amounting to Rs.1,13,52,547 are to be excluded from total turnover as well for computation of deduction under Section 10A whereas such exclusion is permitted to arrive at export turnover only as per 4 the definitions given in Section 10A of the IT Act and total turnover has not been defined in the Section. Whether, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the deduction under Section 10A should be computed in the above manner following the judgment of jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Tata Elxsi Ltd., which has not become final since the same has not been accepted by the Department and SLP is pending before the Hon ble Supreme Court 3. When the matter is taken up today, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the tax impact involved in the instant appeal is less than Rs.1,00,00,000/- and therefore, the same is not maintainable in view of the Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.08.2019. The aforesaid submission is not disputed by the learned counsel for the Revenue.

1 IN HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2020 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.379 OF 2012 BETWEEN: 1. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BENGALURU III. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-12 (3), BENGALURU. ... APPELLANTS (BY JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, ADV.) AND: M/S SEIMENS INFORMATION PROCESSING SERVICES PVT. LTD., OZONE MANAY TECH PARK, BLOCK -A, 6TH FLOOR, 2 G.B.PALYA, HOSUR ROAD, BENGLURU 560 068. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI T. SURYANARAYANA, ADV.) THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED: 29.06.2012 PASSED IN ITA NO.1063/BANG/2011, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-2007 PRAYING TO: i. FORMULATE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN. ii. ALLOW APPEAL AND SET ASIDE ORDER OF ITAT, BENGALURU IN ITA NO. NO.1063/BANG/2011, DATED 29.06.2012 AND ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) III, BENGALURU DATED 10.08.2011 IN APPEAL NO.ITA NO.196/ C-12(3)/CIT(A) III /BNG/2009-10. THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., MADE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Sri Jeevan J. Neeralgi, learned counsel for appellants Revenue. 3 Sri T. Suryanarayana, learned counsel for respondent assessee. This appeal is filed under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961, by Revenue, being aggrieved by order dated 29.06.2012 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru, in ITA.No.1063/Bang/2011. 2. appeal was admitted vide order dated 23.09.2013, for considering following substantial questions of law: (i). Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal is justified in law in holding that telecommunication charges amounting to Rs.3,02,49,251 and travel expenses amounting to Rs.1,13,52,547 are to be excluded from total turnover as well for computation of deduction under Section 10A whereas such exclusion is permitted to arrive at export turnover only as per 4 definitions given in Section 10A of IT Act and total turnover has not been defined in Section? (ii). Whether, Tribunal is correct in law in holding that deduction under Section 10A should be computed in above manner following judgment of jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT Vs. Tata Elxsi Ltd., which has not become final since same has not been accepted by Department and SLP is pending before Hon ble Supreme Court? 3. When matter is taken up today, learned counsel for assessee submitted that tax impact involved in instant appeal is less than Rs.1,00,00,000/- and therefore, same is not maintainable in view of Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.08.2019. 5 4. aforesaid submission is not disputed by learned counsel for Revenue. 5. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE nvj CT:MJ Commissioner of Income-ta, Bengaluru-III / Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-12(3), Bengaluru v. Seimens Information Processing Services Pvt. Ltd

Metadata

Judgment