Ita/178/2014 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax -Iii v. M/S Subex Limited

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURUDATBD THIS THER DAY OF JANUARY, 2015 PRESENT THR HON' BLE MR. JUSTICK N.KUMAR ANT) THR HON' BLE MR. JUSTICEK B. VEBRAPPA INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 178/2014 BERITIWE 1.)THR COMMISSIONBR OF INCOME TAX-IIL CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDINGS, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE -560 OO] iaTHR DEPUTY COMMISSIONER. OF INCOME TAX. CIRCLE-12(3), BANGALORE _ APPKRLLANTS~ (BY SRI E.I. SANMATHI, ADVOCATE) ANT) M/S. SUBEX LIMITED, ADARSH TECH PARK,OUTER RING ROAD, DEVARABEESANAHALLI, BANGALORE -560 037. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI CHYTHANYA K.K., ADVOCATE) THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OFTHE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER)DATED|13.11.2013|PASSEDIN|ITANO.1430/BANG/2010, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR2006-07 PRAYING TO DBECIDB THR FORBGOINGQUESTIONOF|LAW|AND/OR|SUCH.OTHRBRQUESTIONS OF LAW AS MAY BE FORMULATED BY)THR HON’ BLE COURT AS DEBEBMBD FIT AND TO SASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDERS DATED 13.11.2013|THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘C’ BENCH, BANGALORE,IN|ITANO.1430/B/2010FOR!ASSHSSMENT YEAR 2006-07. THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL COMING ON FORADMISSION THIS DAY, N. KUMAR, J., DELIVERED|THR FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT The revenue has preferred this appeal against eranting relief to the assessee. The substantial| questions of law raised in this appeal are as under: “7Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Tribunalwas justified in law in holding that thereimbursement of expenditure towardsCOUTIETcharges,internetcharges,insurancecharges|andtraveling expenses incurred in foreign currency,and foreign exchange loss from totalturnover as well as from export turnoverforcomputationof|deduction|undersection JOA whereas such exclusion 1spermitted to arrive at export turnover onlyas per the definitions given in Sec.1OA ofthe IT Act and total turnover has not beendefined in the Section?| D2 Whether the Tribunal is correct inlaw in holding that the deduction undersection 1OA should be computed in theabove manner following the Judgment ofjurisdictional High Court in the case ofCIT us Tata Eba Ltd., which has notbecome final since the same has not beenaccepted by the Department and SLPsfiled by the revenue on this issue arepending before the Hon’ble SupremeCourt?” COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AND ANOTHER vp. TATA ELXS! LTD)reported in|(2012) 349 ITR 98)(Karn),wherein, after referring to the various provisions|of law and the judgments of various Courts, the saidsubstantial questions of law have been answered infavour of the assessee and against the revenue.Accordingly, as the said substantial questions of law arealready answered by this Court, no case for admission1S made out. 3.However, it is submitted that the revenue —has preferred an appeal to the Apex Court against thejudgment of this Court, which is pending consideration. 4In the event of the revenue succeeding in theappeal before the Apex Court then the assessingauthority shall pass consequential order in terms ofSection 260(1A) of the Income Tax Act 1961.. 5 %<;0�;01�69 2176<:� ?71236;< 4��68816=�:<7D<771:���:#'��������������������������������:#'������������Sbs* <7�