Ita/264/2016 Of Pr Commissioner Of Income Tax-4 v. M/S Makino India Pvt Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURUDATED THIS THE 28 DAY OF JUNE, 2016.PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.SREENIVASE GOWDAITA NO.264 OF 2016 BETWEEN 1.|PR.COMMISSIONBR OF INCOME TAX-4. BMTC COMPLEX, KORAMANGALA BANGALORE. «|DY.COMMISSIONER OF |INCOME TAX OFFICEHKINCOME TAX OFFICEHK CIRCLE 12(1) BANGALORE. ... APPBLLANTS| (BY SRI.E.LSANMATHI, ADV.) . AND M/S.MAKINO INDIA PVT.LTDNO.11, EPIP, K.R.PURAMBANGALORE — 560 066.PAN: . RESPONDENT THIS [TA IS FILED UNDER SEHKC.260-A OF INCOME TAACT 1961, PRAYING TO DECIDE THE QUESTION OF LAW AND /.OR|SUCHOTHERQUESTIONSOF.LAWAS|MAYBE|RFORMULATBED BY THERE HON’BLE COURT AND SBT ASIDE APPELLATE ORDER DATED:04.11.2015 PASSED BY THE ITAT,|‘A BENCH, BENGALURU, IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS IN ITANO.935/BANG/2014 FOR A.Y.2004-05. THIS ITA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,JAYANT PATEL J.DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT The appellants-Revenue have preferred this present)appeal by raising the following substantial question of law: “WhetherOT)thefacts andinthecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal was.justified in law in directing the Assessing Officer toexclude|reimbursement.otcertainexpenditure|incurred in foreign currency, both from the ExportTurnover and Total Turnover, without appreciatingthe fact that the statute allows exclusion of such/expenditure expressly only from the Export Turnoverby way of specific definition of export turnoverdefined in the Act, while there is no specific provisionin Section 1OA warranting exclusion of the aboveexpenses from the Total Turnover?” oOWe.haveheardMr.E.I.Sanmathi,learnedcounsel appearing for the appellants-Revenue. 3.Learned counsel for the appellants-Revenuefairly concedes that the question of law is covered by thejudgment of this Court in the case ofCommissioner of | Income Tax & Another -vus- Tata Elxsi Ltd. & Orsreported in (2012) 349 ITR 98 (Karn) 4 |In our view, when the question is already|covered by the decision of this Court, we do not find anysubstantial question of law would arise for consideration.Hence, the present appeal is"dismissed. Sd/-JUDGE|Sd/-.JUDGETL| TL|