Director Of Income Tax v. Virage Logic International
High Court
16 Nov 2016 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · dhcdb
Parties
Director Of Income Tax v. Virage Logic International
Date of order
16 Nov 2016
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Director Of Income Tax v. Virage Logic International, the High Court (2016) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Decision: The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
$~102
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ITA 721/2010
DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX
..... AppellantThrough: Mr. Ashok K. Manchanda and Ms.Lakshmi Gurung, Advs.
versus
VIRAGE LOGIC INTERNATIONAL
..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Prakash Kumar, Mrs. Rashmi Singhand Ms. Mehvish Khan, Advs.
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHATHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRIO R D E R%16.11.2016
1.The questions of law involved in this case are identical to thoseframed in ITA Nos. 1108/2007, 1249/2009 and 173/2016 i.e. as towhether the assessee was entitled to the benefit of Section 10A of theIncome Tax Act, 1961. By a common order dated 09.11.2016 passedin the aforesaid appeals, this Court had answered the questions of lawin favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and, consequently,rejected the appeals. The order, inter alia, concluded as follows:
“.....13. It is undoubtedly aphorism that a legal fictionought to be taken to its logical conclusion and the mindshould not be allowed to boggle. This merely impliesthat a fiction should logically take a direction; thetrain of thought however cannot divert elsewhere. Theabsence of a “deemed export” provision in Section10A similar to the one in Section 80HHC does notlogically undercut the amplitude of the expression
“transfer of goods” under Section 80-IA(8) – which isnow part of Section 10A. Such an interpretation woulddefeat Section 10A(7) entirely.
14. For the above reasons, the Court is of the opinionthat substantial questions of law framed are to beanswered in favour of the assessee and against theRevenue.The ITA Nos. 1108/2007, 1249/2009 and173/2016 are, accordingly, dismissed.It is clarified,however, that the AO is at liberty to give tax effect as aconsequence of the interpretation adopted by thisCourt....”
2.In view of the above development, the questions of law in thiscase too are answered against the Revenue and in favour of theassessee. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
NOVEMBER 16, 2016/kk
NAJMI WAZIRI, J
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.