1 IN HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2020 PRESENT HON BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND HON BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD I.T.A. NO.411 OF 2012 BETWEEN: 1. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE. 3. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(3), BANGALORE. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI K.V.ARAVIND, ADV.) AND: M/S. GE MEDICAL SYSTEMS (I) (P) LTD., NO.122, (PART-1), EPIP, WHITE FIELD ROAD, BANGALORE 560 066. ... RESPONDENT (BY MR.PERCY PARDIWALLA, SR. ADV. FOR MR. PAI DHUNGAT ANKUR, ADV. FOR MR. HARISH V.S, ADV.) --- 2 THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T.ACT, 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 13/07/2012 PASSED IN ITA NO.767/BANG/2010, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-2001, PRAYING TO I. FORMULATE SUSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN; II. ALLOW APPEAL AND SET ASIDE ORDERS PASSED BY ITAT, BANGALORE IN ITA NO.767/BANG/2010 DATED 13/07/2012 AND CONFIRM ORDER OF APPELLATE COMMISSIONER CONFIRMING ORDER PASSED BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1), PUNE. THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT This appeal under Section 260-A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act , for short) has been preferred by revenue. subject matter of appeal pertains to Assessment Year 2000- 2001. appeal was admitted by Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.02.2013 on following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether Tribunal was correct in holding that exchange fluctuation gain is liable to be treated as income 3 from export business for computing deduction u/s.80HHC without taking into consideration, date of raising sale bill, date of foreign exchange remittance and date of conversion of foreign exchange into India rupees? 2. Whether Tribunal was correct in reversing finding of Assessing Officer confirmed by Appellate Commissioner in holding that foreign exchange gain is income from other sources as same would depend on rate of exchange and liable to be treated as income from other sources? 2. When matter was taken up today, learned Senior counsel for assessee submitted that substantial questions of law involved in this appeal have already been answered by two decisions of this Court in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AND ANOTHER VS. INFOSYS TECHNOLOGIES LTD. , [2012] 349 ITR 606 (KARN), COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 4 AND ANOTHER VS. NOVELL SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT (I) PVT. LTD. , [2013] 355 ITR 339 (KARN) as well as decision of Gujarat High Court in CIT-III VS. M/S.PRIYANKA GEMS , [2014] 367 ITR 575 (GUJ). aforesaid submission could not be disputed by learned counsel for revenue. 3. For reasons assigned in aforesaid decisions, substantial questions of law framed in this appeal are answered against revenue and in favour of assessee. In result, appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE dn/- CT-HR Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalore / Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-1(1), Pune / Dy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-11(3), Bangalore v. Ge Medical Systems (I) (P) Ltd