Anr v. Tata Elxsi Ltd. & Ors, Reported In(2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BBNGALURU DATED THIS THE 16 DAY OF DBECBKRMBEBR 20 PRESENT THER HON’BLE MR.JUSTICK N KUMAR| AN ] THR HON’BLBE MR.JUSTICBK B.MANOHA ITA NO.26 OF 2012 BETWEEN 1. THB COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAXC 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 LTDNO.10/24, KUMARA KRUPA ROAD,HIGH GROUNDS,BANGALORE 560 OO] ... RESPONDENT (BY SMT VANI H, ADV.) This ITA is filed U/S.260-A of I.T. Act, 1961arising out of Order dated 21-09-2011 passed in ITA|No.69/Bang/2010, for the Assessment Year 2004-2005, praying that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased|to: 1. formulate the substantial questions of law statedtherein, 11. allow the appeal and set aside the order|dated 21/09/2011 passed by the ITAT, Bangalore in 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. This appeal coming on for orders this day,NKUMAR J.,delivered the following: JUDGMENT The Revenue has preferred this appeal againstthe order passed by the Tribunal granting relief to theaAsSSsSE€S 2. Three substantial questions of law do arise. for consideration in this appeal: 1.Whether the Tribunal was correct in holdingthat the freight and insurance expenses arerequired to be reduced from the total turnoveralso in the absence of any provisions to thiseffect in section 10B of the Act and in view of.the jurisdictional High Court judgment in thecase oft the assessee for the earlier assessmentyear in ITRC No.350/1998 DD 04.08.2006?that the freight and insurance expenses arerequired to be reduced from the total turnoveralso in the absence of any provisions to thiseffect in section 10B of the Act and in view of.the jurisdictional High Court judgment in thecase oft the assessee for the earlier assessmentyear in ITRC No.350/1998 DD 04.08.2006? 2.Whether the Tribunal was correct in holdingthat turnover of any Seide division is to betaken into account for computing deductionu/s.8QOHHC of the Act inspite of the provisionsthat turnover of any Seide division is to betaken into account for computing deductionu/s.8QOHHC of the Act inspite of the provisions of Section SOHHC(3) providing for the total)turnover of the assessee? 3.Whether the Tribunal was correct in holdingthat the assessee is entitled to claim deduction u/s.8O0HHC of the Act on a portion of the profitattributable to the Filati unit which is eligible|for deduction u/s.10B of the Act?that the assessee is entitled to claim deduction u/s.8O0HHC of the Act on a portion of the profitattributable to the Filati unit which is eligible|for deduction u/s.10B of the Act? 3. Insofar as the first substantial question of law isconcerned, this Court had an occasion to consider thesame in the case ofCommissioner of Income Tax & Anr. Vs. Tata Elxsi Ltd. & Ors, reported in(2012) 65 DTR (Kar) 206, Where the said substantial|question of law was answered in favour of theassessee. Following the said judgment in this case.also, the first substantial question of law is answeredin favour of the assessee. However, the Revenue has—preferred an appeal against the said order before the.Hon’ble Apex Court, which is pending consideration.In the event of the Revenue succeeding before theHon’ble Apex Court, then the assessing authority Shall pass consequential orders in terms of Section260(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Insofar as the first substantial question of law isconcerned, this Court had an occasion to consider thesame in the case ofCommissioner of Income Tax & Anr. Vs. Tata Elxsi Ltd. & Ors, reported in(2012) 65 DTR (Kar) 206, Where the said substantial|question of law was answered in favour of theassessee. Following the said judgment in this case.also, the first substantial question of law is answeredin favour of the assessee. However, the Revenue has—preferred an appeal against the said order before the.Hon’ble Apex Court, which is pending consideration.In the event of the Revenue succeeding before theHon’ble Apex Court, then the assessing authority Shall pass consequential orders in terms of Section260(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. Insofar as substantial questions of law 2 and 3°are concerned, in the assessee’s case itself for theearlier|assessmentY€ars1n ITANos.91/2009, 99/2009 and 60/2009 decided on 14.11.2014, this|Court has answered the said substantial questions oflaw 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 favourof the assessee and against the Revenue. o. In that view of the matter, we do not see anymerit in this appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. JT/-| Sd/-. JUDGE| Sd/-| JUDGE |