Income Tax v. Tata Elxst Limited (2012) 349 Itr 98

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BBNGALURU DATEBD THIS THE DAY OF DECEMBER, 20109 PRESENT THR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICK VINEBT SARAN| AND THR HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA| I.T.A.NO.385/2015 BETWEEN: 1.|PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, TAX, CENTRAL REVENUE| BUILDINGS, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE-560 OO1. «|THERE DEPUTLY COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 12(4)BANGALORE.INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 12(4)BANGALORE. _ APPBLLANTS (BY SRI E.R.INDRAKUMAR, SR. ADV., FOR SRI E.I.SANMATHD) AND: M/s. TELERADIOLOGY SOLUTIONSPVT. LTD.,NO.7G1, VISWESHWARAIAH |INDUSTRIAL AREA, ITPL ROAD,OPP. GRAPHITE INDIA,BANGALORE -48PAN: AABCT8183H .. RESPONDEN THIS ITA Is FILED UNDER 2600-A OF IT ACT, 1961,ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 13.02.2015 PASSED IN [TANO.1728/BANG/2013, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10.PRAYING TO DECIDE THE FORGOING QUESTION OF LAW AND|ETC., | THIS ITA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,VINEET SARAN J..DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT We have heard Sri E.R.Indrakumar, learned SeniorCounsel appearing along with Sri E.I.Sanmathi, for the|appellants and perused the record. 2.This appeal has been filed raising the following|questions of law “1. Whether, on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, is the Tribunal isjustified in law in holding that the reimbursement|of telecommunication expenses and insurance.incurred in foreign currency are to be excluded|both from total turnover as well as from exportturnover for computation of deduction undersection IOA whereas such exclusion is permittedto arrive at export turnover only as per thedefinitions given in section 1OA of the I.T.Act andtotal turnover has not been defined in the section? 11.Whether, the Tribunal ts correct inlaw in holding that the deduction under Section|IOA should be computed in the above mannerfollowing the judgment of this Hon’ble Court in|the CIT V/s. TATA Elxst which has not become|final since the same has challenged beforeHon’ble Apex Court by filing SLP and as such the|Tribunal ought to have awaited the decision of|the Hon’ble Apex Court? wi. Whether, on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, is the Tribunal isjustified in law in holding that expenditureincurred on Granite Work, Pavement Gate and.specific Tank as revenue expenditure as againstcapital expenditure held by assessing authority even when that only current repairs are eligible tobe claimed and Section 37(1) excludes thoseitems of expenditure which expressly falls inSections 30 to 36?” 3.Learned counsel for the appellants has fairly|stated that the first two questions are covered by thedecision ot this Court in the case of.Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Tata Elxst Limited (2012) 349 ITR 98. As such, no substantial question of law arises fordetermination by this Court in the first two questions. 4.As regards the third question, the findings of fact have been recorded by the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), as well as the Tribunal, that the expenditure ofRs.17,43,738/-, which is disputed, was incurred towardsrepairs and maintenance, which would be revenue in natureand not capital expenditure. We find no reason to defer withthe findings so recorded by the authorities below. As such, we do not find that any substantial questionof law arises for determination by this Court in this appeal.The appeal is accordinglydismissed. TTL sd/-JUDGE| JUDGE| sd/-. JUDGE|