Ita/215/2009 Of K Muniswamy Reddy v. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 2[nd]DAY OF DECEMBER, 2014 PRESENT THR HON' BLE MR. JUSTICK N.KUMAR ANT) THR HON BLE MR. JUSTICEK B. MANOHAR INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 219/2009 BERITIWE 1.The Commissioner of Income Tax, C.R. Building,| Queens Road, Bangalore. ? The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-12(1), C.R. Building,|Queens Road,Bangalore.... APPELLANTS (BY SRI K V ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) AND: Motor Industries Co., Ltd., Hosur Road,Adugodi,Bangalore-560 O30,_. RESPONDENT. (BY SRI TANMAYEE RAJKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR ©M/S. KING & PARTRIDGE) This ITA is filed under Section J6O0O-A of thIncome Tax Act, 1961 arising out of Order dated 2 12.12.2008 passed in ITA No. 543/Bang/2008, for theassessment year 1995-96 praying to formulate thesubstantial questions of law stated therein and to allowthe appeal and set aside the order passed by the ITATBangalore|in.ITANo.043/Bang/2008, dated|12.12.2008 confirming the order of the AppellateCommissioner and confirm the order passed by theAssistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Cuircle-12(1),Bangalore in the interest of justice and equity. This Income Tax Appeal coming on for Orders thisday, N. Kumar J., delivered the following: JUDGMENT The revenue has preferred this appeal against the order passed by the Tribunal. The two substantial questions of law which arise for our consideration are asunder: 6.7Whether the Appellate Authoritieswere correct in holding that 90%of the fees received from Robert.Bosch,Germanytowardsdevelopment work carried out for.them need not be reduced from.thebusiness|profits.for.thePULTPOSCOT deductionunderSection SOHHC of the Act?were correct in holding that 90%of the fees received from Robert.Bosch,Germanytowardsdevelopment work carried out for.them need not be reduced from.thebusiness|profits.for.thePULTPOSCOT deductionunderSection SOHHC of the Act?6A7Whether the Appellate Authorities|WEeETCOTTEeEC1nholdingthat|expenditure incurred in _ foreigCUTTencyin.connectionwith|WEeETCOTTEeEC1nholdingthat|expenditure incurred in _ foreigCUTTencyin.connectionwith| 3 execution of soitware project neednot be reduced from the exportTULrNOVETforthepurposeot|computingdeductionunder|section SOHHE of the Act byignoring Clause (c) of Explanationto Section 80OHHE(5) of the Act? 2. In so far as the first substantial questionof law is concerned, the same was the subjectmatter of appeal in the assessee’s case itself in thecase of.Commissioner of Income-Tax and Another -vs- Motor Industries Co. Ltd., reported in /2011] 331ITR 79(Kar)where the said question was held infavour of the assessee and against the revenue. |Following the said judgment, the first substantial|question of law is answered in favour of the.assessee and against the revenue. 3. In so far as the second substantial|question of law is concerned, the same was thesubject matter of an appealin the assessee’s case.itself before this Court inITA No. 776/2007 and)connected matters which was disposed of on 4 13.6.29014answering the said substantial question of law in favour of the assessee. Following thesaid judgment, the second substantial question oflaw is also answered in favour of the assessee andagainst the revenue. 4. In that view, we do not see any merit inthis appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. od/-|Judge od/- Judge Nsu/-_