Ita/432/2014 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Mascot Systems Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6 DAY OF MARCH 2015) PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEET SARAN AND| THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA ITA NO 432 OF 2014 BETWEEN| 1.THERE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXCR BUILDING, QUEENS ROADCR BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE. 2THE ASST. COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-12(1)OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-12(1) RASHTROTHANA BHAVAN. NRUPATHUNGA ROALD BANGALORE..... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. K V ARAVIND, ADV. )| AND| M/S MASCOT SYSTEMS LTD.(NOW M/S IGATE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD., )|FLAT NO.158-162(P), EPIP2ZND PHASE, NEAR SAP LABWHITEFIELD, BANGALORE. — RESPONDENT. THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SKC.260-A OF INCOME TAXACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED:09/05/2014 PASSED| IN ITA NO.2291/BANG/2004, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20012002. THIS ITA COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, |VINEET SARANJ)DRBLELIVEBERED THER KFOLLO JUDGMENT The Revenue has preferred this appeal against granting|relief to the Assessee. The substantial question of law raised inthis appeal is as under: “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of|the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in holdingthat the expenses incurred in foreign exchange on foreigntravel of the Assessee’s employees deductedfrom computingexport turnover under Section 10A of the Act should alsobe reduced for computing total turnover when arriving atdeduction under Section 10A of the Act and moreoverwhen the decision relied upon by the Iribunal has notreachedfinality?” 2.|This Court had an occasion to consider the' substantial question of law, in the case ofCommissioner Of Income-Tax And Another -vs- Tatg Flxsi Ltd.reported 1n (2012) 349 ITR 98 (Karn),wherein, after referring to the various provisions of law and the judgments of various Courts, the saidsubstantial question of law has been answered in favour of theAssessee and against the Revenue. Accordingly, as the saidsubstantial question of law 1s already answered by this Court, noCaSs€281admission 1s made out. CuHowever, it is submitted that the Revenue has —preferred an appeal to the Apex Court against the judgment ofthis Court, which is pending consideration.| AIn the event of the Revenue succeeding in the appealbefore the Apex Court then the Assessing Authority shall passconsequential order in terms of Section 260(1A) of the IncomeTax Act 1961. With the aforesaid observation, the appeal tsdismissed TL Sd/- | JUDGE Sd/-| JUDGE