By Sri Aravind v. Chavan, Adv

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATBD THIS THR 5 DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2014 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICEK N.KUMAR ANT) THER HON’BLE MRS..JUSTICEK RATHNAKA INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.549 OF 2013 BBRITIWEE 1.THE COMMIssIONER OF INCOME-TAX,C.R. BUILDING,QUEENS ROAD,BANGALORE.C.R. BUILDING,QUEENS ROAD,BANGALORE. «|THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER,WARD-11(1),|RASHTROTHANA BHAVAN, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,BANGALORE. .. APPELLANTS (BY SRI K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.) AND: M/s. AURIGENE DISCOVERYTECHNOLOGIES LTD.,NO.39-40, KIADB INDUSTRIAL AREA,ELECTRONIC CITY, PHASE-II,HOSUR ROAD,BANGALORE -— 560 100. . RESPONDENT (BY SRI ARAVIND V. CHAVAN, ADV.) THIS INCOMB TAX APPBAL IS FILED UNDER SBCTION|260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDERDATED 12/07/2013 PASSED IN ITA NO.27/BANG/2013, FORTHE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-2010, PRAYING TO: I.|FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW|STATED ABOVE.STATED ABOVE. Il.ALLOW THR APPBAL AND SBI ASIDEKE THR ORDERPASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,|BANGALOREIN|ITA|NO.27/BANG/2013_DATHD:12/07/2013.CONFIRMINGTHEORDEROF.THEAPPBRBLLATEK COMMISSIONBR AND CONFIRM THE ORDPASSED BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(1),|BANGALORE.PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,|BANGALOREIN|ITA|NO.27/BANG/2013_DATHD:12/07/2013.CONFIRMINGTHEORDEROF.THEAPPBRBLLATEK COMMISSIONBR AND CONFIRM THE ORDPASSED BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(1),|BANGALORE. THIS ITA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,|N. KUMAR * DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JU DGMENT This appeal is preferred by the Revenue raising the| following two substantial questions of law: 1,Whether on the facts and in the circumstances|and in law the Tribunal was correct in holding|that the expenditure incurred in _ foreigcurrency excluded from export turnover hasto |be excluded from total turnover when theretsno provision in Section 10B to exclude from|total turnover?and in law the Tribunal was correct in holding|that the expenditure incurred in _ foreigcurrency excluded from export turnover hasto |be excluded from total turnover when theretsno provision in Section 10B to exclude from|total turnover? D2Whether on the facts and in the circumstances|and in law the Tribunal was correct in holding|that the unabsorbed depreciation and _ thbrought forward loss cannot be set off from|business profits before computing deductionu/s.10B of the Act when Section 1OB of theand in law the Tribunal was correct in holding|that the unabsorbed depreciation and _ thbrought forward loss cannot be set off from|business profits before computing deductionu/s.10B of the Act when Section 1OB of the Act provides for deduction of benefit on the|profits and gains?| 2. The first substantial question of law is covered by|the judgment of this Court in the case ofCommisstoner of Income Tax & Another -vus- Tata Elxsi Ltd. & Ors.reported in(2012) 349 ITR 98 (Karn). similarly, the secondsubstantial question of law is also covered by the decision ofthis Court in the case otfCommissioner of Income Tax & Another -vs- Yokogawa India Ltd. & Ors.|reported in(2012) 341 ITR 38S (Karn).Therefore, as the saidquestions of law are already answered in favour of theassessee and against the Revenue, we do not see any merit|in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. However, it was|submitted by the Revenue that against the aforesaid twojudgments of this Court, appeals are filed and are pendingbefore the Apex Court. Hence, in the event of Revenuesucceeding before the Apex Court, the Assessing Authorityshall pass consequential orders under Section 260(1A) of the �;A>C2��0D��A9���)+���0/�124�9-2�>4624/�9>�72�10//26�78�9-2� �12D��><49�� ��������������������� ���� ���'!�