The Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalore / The Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax Circle-12(1), Bangalore v. Mind Tree Consulting Ltd. (Formerly Mind Tree Consulting Private Ltd.) - 2020-LL-0817-15

Citation	2020-LL-0817-15
Appellant Name	The Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalore / The Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax Circle-12(1), Bangalore
Respondent Name	Mind Tree Consulting Ltd. (Formerly Mind Tree Consulting Private Ltd.)
Court	HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Relevant Act	Income-tax
Date of Order	17/08/2020
Assessment Year	2006-07
Judgment	View Judgment
Keyword Tags	computing deduction • specific provision • foreign currency • export turnover • total turnover
Bot Summary:	Mr.Chythanya K.K., learned counsel for the assessee. This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been preferred by the revenue which was admitted by a Bench of this Court on 14.08.2013 on the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the Appellate Authorities were correct in holding that foreign currency, telecommunication and insurance charges excluded from export turnover has to be 3 excluded from total turnover also for the purpose of computing deduction under Section 10B of the Act contrary to the provisions of Section 10B of the Act 2. Whether the Appellate Authorities were correct in not taking into consideration that Section 10B provides for exclusion of certain expenses only from export turnover and the same cannot be reduced/excluded from total turnover in the absence of specific provision and recorded a perverse finding 3. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the revenue fairly submitted that the substantial questions of law have been answered against the revenue by the Supreme Court in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL-III Vs. HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD. 302 CTR 191. In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law, the substantial questions of law framed by this Court in this 4 appeal are answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee.

1 IN HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS 17TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 PRESENT HON BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND HON BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD I.T.A. NO.175 OF 2013 BETWEEN: 1. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE. 2. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-12(1), RASHTROTHANA BHAVANA NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE. ... APPELLANTS (BY Mr. M. DILIP, A/W Mr. K.V. ARAVIND, ADVS.) AND: M/S. MIND TREE CONSULTING LTD., (FORMERLY MIND TREE CONSULTING PVT. LTD.,) GLOBAL VILLAGE, RVCE POST MYLASANDRA, MYSORE ROAD BANGALORE-560059. ... RESPONDENT (BY Mr. CHYTHANYA K.K. ADV.) --- THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T. ACT, 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 31-10-2012 PASSED IN ITA NO.1347/BANG/2011, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 PRAYING TO: 2 I. FORMULATE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN. II. ALLOW APPEAL AND SET ASIDE ORDER DATED 31-10-2012 IN ITA NO.1347/BANG/2011 PASSED BY ITAT, BENGALURU AND CONFIRM ORDER OF APPELLATE COMMISSIONER CONFIRMING ORDER PASSED BY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-12(1), BANGALORE. THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Mr.K.V.Aravind, learned counsel along with Mr.M.Dilip, learned counsel for revenue. Mr.Chythanya K.K., learned counsel for assessee. 2. This appeal under Section 260-A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act , for short) has been preferred by revenue which was admitted by Bench of this Court on 14.08.2013 on following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether Appellate Authorities were correct in holding that foreign currency, telecommunication and insurance charges excluded from export turnover has to be 3 excluded from total turnover also for purpose of computing deduction under Section 10B of Act contrary to provisions of Section 10B of Act? 2. Whether Appellate Authorities were correct in not taking into consideration that Section 10B provides for exclusion of certain expenses only from export turnover and same cannot be reduced/excluded from total turnover in absence of specific provision and recorded perverse finding? 3. When matter was taken up today, learned counsel for revenue fairly submitted that substantial questions of law have been answered against revenue by Supreme Court in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL-III Vs. HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD. (2018) 302 CTR 191 (SC). 4. In view of aforesaid enunciation of law, substantial questions of law framed by this Court in this 4 appeal are answered against revenue and in favour of assessee. In result, appeal is dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE RV Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalore / Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax Circle-12(1), Bangalore v. Mind Tree Consulting Ltd. (Formerly Mind Tree Consulting Private Ltd.)

Metadata

Judgment