Date Of Judgment 03-07-2018, Ita v. M/S. Cypres Semiconductors Technology Pvt. Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3 DAY OF JULY 2O18| PRESENT THR HON’BLEK DR.JUSTICE VINBBT KOTHARI ANT) THR HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICEK S.SUJATHA I.T.A.No.587/2017 BETWEEN : 1.THE Pr. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CITA] % FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING 80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA| BBENGALURU-560095. oD THER DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMBE-TA CIRCLE-11[2], PRESENT ADDRESS— CIRCLE-2]1}/1], 2 KFLOOR| BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD KORMANGALA BBENGALURU-560095._ APPBLLANTS| (BY SRI K.V.ARAVIND, ADV.) AND ; M/s. CYPRES SEMICONDUCTORS TECHNOLOGY PVT. LTD.,C BLOCK, BAGMANE TECHPARK|C.V. RAMAN NAGAR, BENGALURU-560093 PAN: AABCC 24700.|_. RESPONDENT. (BY SRI SANDEEP HUILGOL, ADV.) THIS INCOMB TAX APPBAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION|260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER|DATED 07.02.2017 PASSED IN C.O. NO.93/BANG/2015, FOR:THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-2009 AT ANNEXURE-D, PRAYINGTO 1. FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW AS| Date of Judgment 03-07-2018, ITA No.587/2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax, CIT[A] & another Vs. M/s. Cypres Semiconductors Technology Pvt. Ltd., STATEKED ABOVE. 2. ALLOW THR APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,BENGALURU IN C.O. No.93/BANG/2015 DATED 07.02.2017 AT.ANNBXURE-D CONFIRMING THR ORDER PASSED BY THE!DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2}1]/1],_BBNGALURU AND BIC. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,|Dr. VINEET KOTHARI, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JU DBiGMENT Mr. K.V.Aravind,Adv. for Appellants — Revenue.Mr. Sandeep Huilgol,Adv. for Respondent — Assessee. This Appeal is filed by the Revenue purportedlyraising substantial questions of law arising from theOrder of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench ‘B’, Bangalore, inC.O. No.93/Bang/2015dated 07.02.2017, relating to the Assessment Year2008-09. 2.The proposed substantial questions of law|framed by the Revenue in the Memorandum of Appealare as under: “1.WhetherOF|the factsandin|the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal ts correct in directing the assessing officer to|excludeExpensesincurred inforeigncurrency and other expenses that has been| D2 3.| Date of Judgment 03-07-2018, ITA No.587/2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax, CIT[A] & another Vs. M/s. Cypres Semiconductors Technology Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Cypres Semiconductors Technology Pvt. Ltd., 3/19 excluded from ETO, from the total turnover|also.andaccordinglyrecomputedthe.deduction|undersectionLOA|withoutappreciating the fact that there is noprovisioninSectionLOAthatsuch|expenses should be reduced from the total|turnoveralso.as|clause[wyoftheExplanation 2 to Section 10A provides that|such expenses are to be reduced only fromthe export turnover? WhetherOnlthe factsandin|thecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal ts rightinlawin|excludingcertaincomparable’s on the ground of functional|dissimilarity even when Transfer PricingOfficerhasly | rigchosen.theSQaInconsidering its functions which are similarto assessee’s and has satisfied all the)required tests and without doing an FAR|analysis of the taxpayer with those othercases?| WhetherOnlthe factsandin|thecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal ts right in law in excluding certain comparableeven when the said decisions relied upon|by Tribunal has not reached finality and) Date of Judgment 03-07-2018, ITA No.587/2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax, CIT[A] & another Vs. M/s. Cypres Semiconductors Technology Pvt. Ltd., 4/19 TPO has chosen the comparable afterapplying all the required tests?| 4 |WhetherOnlthe factsandin|thecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal ts rightinlawin|retaining certaincomparable’s by following its earlier order|which has not reached finality TPO haschosen the comparable after applying all|the required tests? WhetherOnlthe factsandin|thecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal ts right in law in excluding certain comparableeven when the said decisions relied upon|by Tribunal has not reached finality and) Date of Judgment 03-07-2018, ITA No.587/2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax, CIT[A] & another Vs. M/s. Cypres Semiconductors Technology Pvt. Ltd., 4/19 TPO has chosen the comparable afterapplying all the required tests?| 4 |WhetherOnlthe factsandin|thecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal ts rightinlawin|retaining certaincomparable’s by following its earlier order|which has not reached finality TPO haschosen the comparable after applying all|the required tests? 5.|Whether,OTLthe factsandinthecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal|was right in law in allowing the relief to theassessee for deduction under Section 10A|in respect of Lara Unit /[STPI Unit — Il/ ofRs.5,27,61,580/- relying on the assessee’s|own case for the assessment years 2002-O3 to 2004-05 which was later confirmedby this Hon'ble Court in ITA No. 1013/2008connected with ITA No.1014/2008 and|1015/2008 dated 07.11.2014 even thoughthe said decisions have not reached|finality P” 3.Learned Counsel for the Appellants-Revenue does not press substantial question Nos.4 and 5. Date of Judgment 03-07-2018, ITA No.587/2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax, CIT[A] & another Vs. M/s. Cypres Semiconductors Technology Pvt. Ltd., 5/19 4Submission is taken on record. ,Regarding first substantial question of law: 5.Learned counsel for the Appellants-Revenue|Mr.K.V.Aravind submits that the issue regardingdeduction of expenditure incurred for|‘Export Turn) Over’is also required to be deducted from‘Total TurnOver’for the purpose of computing the deduction|u/s.1OAof the Act, the controversy is no longer |res integraand is covered by the decision of the DivisionBench of this Court in the case of.M/s.Tata Elxsi Ltd.,vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax,decided on20.10.2015since reported in.(2015) 127 DTR O327(Kar), which has been affirmed by the Hon’ble SupremeCourt in the case otfCommissioner of Income-tax,Central - III vs. HCL Technologies Ltd., [2018] 93Taxmann.com 33(SC). 6.The relevant portion of the judgment of theHon ’bleSupremeCourt1nthe.CASEoT HCL| Date of Judgment 03-07-2018, ITA No.587/2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax, CIT[A] & another Vs. M/s. Cypres Semiconductors Technology Pvt. Ltd., 6/19 Technologies Ltd. (supra),is quoted below for ready reference: - “17. The similar nature of controversy, akinthis case, arose before the Karnataka High CourtinCIT v. Tata Elxsi Ltd[2012] 204 Taxman321/17/taxman.com 100/349 ITR 98.The issue|before the Karnataka High Court was whether|the Tribunal was correct in holding that while|computing relief under Section 10A of the IT Act,the amount of communication expenses should be|excluded from the total turnover if the same are.reduced from the export turnover? While giwing|the answer to the issue, the High Court, inter-alia,held that when a particular word is not definedby the legislature and an ordinary meaning is tobe attributed to it, the said ordinary meaning is tobe in conformity with the context in which it is.used. Hence, what is excluded from ‘exportturnover must also be excluded from ‘totalturnover’, since one of the components of ‘totalturnover|1S|exportTurnover,Anyother|interpretation would run counter to the legislativeintent and would be impermissible. TSB. XXXXXX Date of Judgment 03-07-2018, ITA No.587/2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax, CIT[A] & another Vs. M/s. Cypres Semiconductors Technology Pvt. Ltd., 7/19 19, In the instant case, if the deductions onfreight,telecommunicationand|insuranceattributable to the delivery of computer softwareunder Section 10A of the IT Act are allowed onlyin Export Turnover but not from the TotalTurnover then, it would give rise to inadvertent,unlawful, meaningless and illogical result whichwould cause grave injustice to the Respondentwhich could have never been the intention of thelegislature. TSB. XXXXXX Date of Judgment 03-07-2018, ITA No.587/2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax, CIT[A] & another Vs. M/s. Cypres Semiconductors Technology Pvt. Ltd., 7/19 19, In the instant case, if the deductions onfreight,telecommunicationand|insuranceattributable to the delivery of computer softwareunder Section 10A of the IT Act are allowed onlyin Export Turnover but not from the TotalTurnover then, it would give rise to inadvertent,unlawful, meaningless and illogical result whichwould cause grave injustice to the Respondentwhich could have never been the intention of thelegislature. 20. Even in common parlance, when theobject of the formula ts to arrive at the profit fromexport business, expenses excluded from exportturnover have to be excluded from total turnoveralso. Otherwise, any other interpretation makesthe formula unworkable and absurd. Hence, weare satisfied that such deduction shall be allowedfrom the total turnover in same proportion aswell”. Regarding substantial questions of law Nos.2 and 3:, T.The learned Tribunal, after discussing therival contentions of both the Appellants-Revenue andRespondent-Assessee, has returned a finding as under:| Date of Judgment 03-07-2018, ITA No.587/2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax, CIT[A] & another Vs. M/s. Cypres Semiconductors Technology Pvt. Ltd., 8/19 7We|have.consideredthe rivalSuUbDmMISSIOandWe|examineVArlIOuUcomparables one by one in the light of the chartsubmitted by learned AR of the assessee. 5.|The first comparable as per this chartis M/s. Avant Cimcon Technologies. The turnoverof this company is Rs.2.93 Crores approximatelyand therefore, the turnover of this company isless than 1/10[th]of the turnover of the assesseecompany. Hence, by applying this turnover filterof 1/71[th]or 10 times of the turnover of the|assessee company, this company is to beexcluded from the list of final comparables. Weuphold the order of the learned CIT/A] regardingthis comparable. ”9_The second comparable is M/s.Bodhtree Consulting Ltd. This company was)excluded by the learned CIT/A/] on this basis thatservices provided are in the nature ofITES and nobreak-up of segmental data is available and alsofor this reason that this is functionally differentand we find that exclusion of this company isSquarely covered in favour of the assessee by theTribunal order rendered in the case of GXS IndiaTechnology Centre Put. Ltd., Vs. ITO in IT/TP/ANo. 1444/ Bang/ 2012 dated 31.07.2015 for t Date of Judgment 03-07-2018, ITA No.587/2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax, CIT[A] & another Vs. M/s. Cypres Semiconductors Technology Pvt. Ltd., 9/19 same assessment year 2008-09, copy of which isavailable on pages 38 to 86 of the case lawspaper book. Respectfully following this Tribunalorder, we decline to interfere in the order of thelearned CIT/A] about exclusion of this comparable. 10.The third comparable as per thechart is M/s Celestial Biolabs. Exclusion of thiscompany is also squarely covered in favour of theassessee by the same Tribunal order rendered inthe case of M/s. GXS India Technology CentrePut. Ltd [Supral and therefore, regarding thiscomparable also, we decline to interfere in theorder of the learned CITA]. ll.The fourth comparable as per chart isM/s e-zest Solutions Ltd. This comparable wasretained by the learned CIT/A] but since thiscompany is having turnover of only Rs.7.66Crores which is less than 1/10 of the turnover ofthe assessee company, we hold that thiscompany does not satisfy the turnover filter of1/10[th]of turnover of assessee company andtherefore, we exclude this company from the listoffinal comparables. 12.The fifth comparable as per the chart1SM/sFlextronics[Arienty.Regardingthts Date of Judgment 03-07-2018, ITA No.587/2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax, CIT[A] & another Vs. M/s. Cypres Semiconductors Technology Pvt. Ltd., 10/19 ll.The fourth comparable as per chart isM/s e-zest Solutions Ltd. This comparable wasretained by the learned CIT/A] but since thiscompany is having turnover of only Rs.7.66Crores which is less than 1/10 of the turnover ofthe assessee company, we hold that thiscompany does not satisfy the turnover filter of1/10[th]of turnover of assessee company andtherefore, we exclude this company from the listoffinal comparables. 12.The fifth comparable as per the chart1SM/sFlextronics[Arienty.Regardingthts Date of Judgment 03-07-2018, ITA No.587/2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax, CIT[A] & another Vs. M/s. Cypres Semiconductors Technology Pvt. Ltd., 10/19 comparable, itis submitted by the assessee in thechart that this company is having a turnover ofRs.954.42 Crores and therefore, this company’sturnover is in excess of 10 times of assessee’sturnover and therefore, we find no reason tointerfere with the order of the learned CIT/A/regarding this comparable also. 13.The suth comparable as per chart tsiGate Global Solution Ltd. It has been fairlyconceded by the learned AR of the assessee thatthis company may be retained in the list offinalcomparables because this company satisfies theturnover filter of 1/10[th]or 10 times of turnover|and the learned CIT/A] excluded this company byapplying the turnover filter of Rs. One Crore toRs.200 Crores filter. Hence, we reverse the order|of the learned CIT/A] regarding exclusion of thiscomparable and direct the TPO to include thiscompany in the final list of comparables. 14.|The next company as per the chart isM/s Infosys Ltd., and this company is having|turnover of Rs.15672 Crores and this companyhas to be excluded by applying the turnover filterof 10 times of turnover filter. Accordingly,l we.decline to interfere with the order of the learned|CIT[A] regarding exclusion of M/s. Infosys Ltd.| Date of Judgment 03-07-2018, ITA No.587/2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax, CIT[A] & another Vs. M/s. Cypres Semiconductors Technology Pvt. Ltd., 11/19 1S.The next comparable as per the chartis M/s Kals Information Systems Ltd., [Seg/. Theturnover of this company is Rs.2.05 Crores andtherefore, this company has to be excludedbecause the turnover of this company is less than1/10[th]of the assessee’s turnover. Therefore, we|decline to interfere with the order of the learnedCIT/A] regarding exclusion of this comparable. 16.The ninth comparable as the chart tsM/s LGS Global Ltd., this comparable wasretained by the learned CIT/A] and we find noreason to interfere with the order of the learnedCIT/A] regarding this comparable. 17.The tenth comparable as per thechart is M/s Mindtree Ltd., [Seg]. The learned ARof the assessee fairly conceded that this companyhas to be included in the final list of comparablebecause this company was excluded by thelearned CIT/[A] by applying turnover filter ofRs.200 Crores. But if we apply the turnover filterof 10 times of the turnover of the assesseecompany, this company is a good comparable.Accordingly, we reverse the order of the learnedCIT/[A] regarding exclusion of this company and 12/19 direct the TPO/AO to include this company in thelist offinal comparables. 1S.The eleventh comparable in the chartis M/s Persistent Systems Ltd. As per the chart,the learned AR of the assessee submitted that thelearnedCIT/A]excludedthisCOMpPay?byapplying the turnover filter of Rs.200 Crores butturnover of this company at Rs.383.41 Crores isless than 10 times of the assessee company’sturnover and therefore, by applying this turnoverfilter, this company cannot be excluded but thiscompany has to be excluded for this reason thatthis company is not functionally comparable ashas been held by the Tribunal in the case of M/sGXS [Supraj/. By respectfully following thisTribunal order, we decline to interfere with theorder of the learned CIT/A] regarding exclusion ofthis company although on a different basis 1.e., onthe basis offunctional dissimilarity. 1S.The eleventh comparable in the chartis M/s Persistent Systems Ltd. As per the chart,the learned AR of the assessee submitted that thelearnedCIT/A]excludedthisCOMpPay?byapplying the turnover filter of Rs.200 Crores butturnover of this company at Rs.383.41 Crores isless than 10 times of the assessee company’sturnover and therefore, by applying this turnoverfilter, this company cannot be excluded but thiscompany has to be excluded for this reason thatthis company is not functionally comparable ashas been held by the Tribunal in the case of M/sGXS [Supraj/. By respectfully following thisTribunal order, we decline to interfere with theorder of the learned CIT/A] regarding exclusion ofthis company although on a different basis 1.e., onthe basis offunctional dissimilarity. LY.The 12[th]comparable as per the chartis M/s Quintegra Solution Ltd. The exclusion of.this company is squarely covered in favour of theassessee by the same Tribunal order rendered inthe case of M/s GXS [Supra/ and respectfullyfollowing the same, we decline to interfere withthe order of the learned CIT{A/ on this issue. Date of Judgment 03-07-2018, ITA No.587/2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax, CIT[A] & another Vs. M/s. Cypres Semiconductors Technology Pvt. Ltd., 13/19 2O.Comparable Nos.13[th]and 14[th]in thechart are M/s R Systems International Ltd., andM/sR.S. Software[Ind.]Ltd.Boththesecomparables were retained by the learned CIT/A/and we find no reason to interfere with the orderof the learned CIT/[A] regarding these twocomparables. YI.Comparable No. 15 as per the chart tsM/s Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd.[Seg]. This comparable was excluded by thelearned CIT/A/ by applying the high turnover filterof Rs.200 Crores because this company was)having a turnover of Rs.335.80 Crores. It wasfairly conceded by the learned AR of the assesseethat since we are applying the turnover filter of1O times of assessee company’s turnover, thiscomparables1SOmgoodcomparable|andaccordingly, we reverse the order of the learnedCIT/[A] on this aspect and direct the TPO/AO toinclude this company in the final lst ofcomparables. DQ?For comparable Nos.16 & I17 le.,M/s Tata Elxsi Ltd. {Seg./ and M/s Thirdwaresolutions Ltd., we find that the exclusion of thesetwo comparables is squarely covered in favour of Date of Judgment 03-07-2018, ITA No.587/2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax, CIT[A] & another Vs. M/s. Cypres Semiconductors Technology Pvt. Ltd., 14/19 the assessee by the same Tribunal orderrendered in the case of M/s GXS_ /SupraljRespectfully following this Tribunal order, wedecline to interfere with the order of the learnedCIT/A]regardingexclusionof|theseTWOcomparables. YS.Comparable no. 18 in the chart isM/s Wipro Ltd (Seg.) and this company has to beexcluded as per the same _ Tribunal orderendered in the case of M/s GXS (Supra) andaccordingly, regarding exclusion of this companyalso, we decline to interfere with the order of the’learned CITA]. Y4|Comparable no.19 in the chart is M/ssoftsol India. As per the Tribunal order renderedin the case of M/s GXS (Supra), the issueregarding exclusion of this company was restoredback to the file of AO/TPO to find out the RPTpercentage of this company which is claimed tobe 18.38% and if it is found that the RPTpercentage 1S TTlorthan|15%|thenthiscomparable should be excluded by applying theRPT filter. Respectfully following this Tribunalorder, in the present case also, we restore thematter back to the file of the AO/TPO to find out Date of Judgment 03-07-2018, ITA No.587/2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax, CIT[A] & another Vs. M/s. Cypres Semiconductors Technology Pvt. Ltd., 15/19 the RPT percentage of this company with thedirection that if itis found that RPT percentage ofthis company is more than 15% then thiscompany Should be excluded from the list offinalcomparables. If the same is less than 15% then itShould remain in the list offinal comparables, Date of Judgment 03-07-2018, ITA No.587/2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax, CIT[A] & another Vs. M/s. Cypres Semiconductors Technology Pvt. Ltd., 15/19 the RPT percentage of this company with thedirection that if itis found that RPT percentage ofthis company is more than 15% then thiscompany Should be excluded from the list offinalcomparables. If the same is less than 15% then itShould remain in the list offinal comparables, 25)The comparable no.20 in the chart tsM/s Lucid Software Ltd. This company is havinga turnover of Rs.2.35 Crores which is less than1/10[th]of assessee’s turnover and therefore, by|applying this turnover fiter of 1/10[th]turnover,we decline to interfere with the order of the Id.CIT(A) regarding exclusion of this company fromthe list offinal comparables. WieComparable no.21 in the chart is M/sIndus Networks Ltd. The Id. CIT (A) directed toinclude this company in _ the final lst ofcomparable but by following the Tribunal orderrendered in the case of DCIT Vs M/s PMC SierraIndia Put. Ltd. In IT (ITP) A No.882 (Bang)/ 2013dated 26.08.2016, copy available on page-174 to220 of case laws paper book, we reverse theorder of the Id. CIT (A) and hold that thiscompany Should not be included in the final list ofcomparables.” Date of Judgment 03-07-2018, ITA No.587/2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax, CIT[A] & another Vs. M/s. Cypres Semiconductors Technology Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Cypres Semiconductors Technology Pvt. Ltd., 16/19 8.The controversy involved herein is no moreres integrain view of the decision of this Court in 1.T.A.Nos.536/2015 c/w 537/201539;7325.06.2018 [Prl. |Commissioner.of|Income.TaxaAnr.V/s.M/s.Softbrands India Pvt. Ltd.,]2wherein it has beenobserved that unless the finding of the Tribunal is foundex facie perverse, the Appeal u/s. 260-A of the Act, isnot maintainable. The relevant portion of the Judgmentis quoted below for ready reference: “Conclusion: 55.Asubstantial quantumof|international trade and transactions depends|upon the fair and quick judicial dispensation|in such cases. Had it been a case oOf|Substantialquestionof|interpretation|of|provisions of Double Taxation AvoidanceTreaties (DTAA), interpretation ofprovisions ofthe Income Tax Act or Overriding Effect of the|Treaties over the Domestic Legislations or the |questions like Treaty Shopping, Base Erosionand Profit Shifting (BEPS), Transfer of Shares| Date of Judgment 03-07-2018, ITA No.587/2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax, CIT[A] & another Vs. M/s. Cypres Semiconductors Technology Pvt. Ltd., 17/19 in Tax Havens (like in the case of Vodafone|etc.), tf based on relevant facts, such|substantial questions of law could beraised before the High Court underSection260-Aof the Act, the Courts could have|embarked upon such exercise offraming and|answering such substantial question of law.On the other hand, the appeals of the present|tenor as to whether the comparables have|been rightly picked up or not, Futers for|arriving at the correct list of comparables|have been rightly applied or not, do not in our|consideredopinion, giveriseTo anysubstantial question of law. 56. We are therefore of the considered|opinion that the present appeals filed by the|Revenue do not give rise to any substantialquestionof|law.andthe|Suggested|substantial questions of law do not meet therequirements ofSection 260-A|of the Act andthus the appeals filed by the Revenue are|found to be devoid of merit and the same are.liable to be dismissed. Date of Judgment 03-07-2018, ITA No.587/2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax, CIT[A] & another Vs. M/s. Cypres Semiconductors Technology Pvt. Ltd., 18/19 56. We are therefore of the considered|opinion that the present appeals filed by the|Revenue do not give rise to any substantialquestionof|law.andthe|Suggested|substantial questions of law do not meet therequirements ofSection 260-A|of the Act andthus the appeals filed by the Revenue are|found to be devoid of merit and the same are.liable to be dismissed. Date of Judgment 03-07-2018, ITA No.587/2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax, CIT[A] & another Vs. M/s. Cypres Semiconductors Technology Pvt. Ltd., 18/19 57. We make it clear that the sameyardsticks and parameters will have to beapplied, even tf such appeals are filed by the|Assessees, because, there may be cases.where the Tribunal giving its own reasons|and findings has found certain comparables|to be good comparables to arrive at an|7s “ArmLength Price“in the case of the assesseeswith which the assessees may not be|satisfied and have filed such appeals beforethis Court. Therefore we clarify that mere|dissatisfaction with the findings of facts|arrived at by the learned Tribunal ts not at all|a sufficient reason to invoke.Section 260-Aof the Act before this Court. o8. The appeals filed by the Revenue are|therefore dismissed with no order as_ tocosts.” Q In the circumstances, having heard thelearned Counsel appearing for both the sides, We are ofthe considered opinion that no substantial question oflaw arises for consideration in the present case. Date of Judgment 03-07-2018, ITA No.587/2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax, CIT[A] & another Vs. M/s. Cypres Semiconductors Technology Pvt. Ltd., 19/19 10,Hence, the Appeal filed by the Appellants- Revenue is liable to be dismissed and is accordinglydismissed. Nocosts.| NC. Sd/-.JUDGE| Sd/-.JUDGE|