Ita/489/2013 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Igate Global Solutions Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BBNGALURU DATED THIS THE 20O DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2010) PRESENT THR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICEK VINBBT SARAN AND THR HON’BLEB MR. JUSTICK MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR ITA NO.489/2013 BETWEEN: 1.THERE COMMISSIONER OF [INCOME T C R BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE. «|THER DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(4) RASHTROTHANA BHAVAN NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE. ... APPELLANTS| (BY SRI. K.V.ARAVIND, ADV.) AND: M/S.IGATE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD.,|NO.158-162 & 165-170,EPIP PHASE IJ, WHITEFIELD,|BANGALORE-560 O66. ~.. RESPONDENT (BY SRI T.SURYANARAYANA, ADV..,) THIS ITA Is FILED UNDER SEC.2600A OF IT ACT, 1961,ARISING OUT OF ORDEBR DATBD 10.05.2013 PASSBD IN ITANO.427/BANG/2012, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05,PRAYING TO I. FORMULTE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF|LAW II. ALLOW THR APPEAL AND SHI ASIDE THE ORDER)PASSED BY THE ITAT, BANGALORE, AND CONFIRM THE ORDEROF THR APPELLATE COMMISSIONR CONFIRMING THERE ORDEPASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,|CIRCLE-11(4), BANGALORE. THIS ITA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, |VINEET SARAN J..DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT We have heard Sri K.V.Aravind, learned counsel for theappellants-Revenue as well as Sri T.Suryanarayana, learned|counsel for the respondent-assessee and perused the record. 2.This appeal has been filed by the Revenue|raising the following substantial questions of law: “.Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case and in law the Tribunalwas correct in holding that the expendituretowards paymentto employees, legaland|professional charges, travel and power chargesincurred in foreign exchange cannot be expensesincurred outside India for rendering technicalservices without examining the purpose for whichexpenditure is incurred?| ll.Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case and in law the Tribunalwas justified in holding that, units at Pune,ChennalandBangaloreWee|independentundertakings and deduction under Section 1OA ofthe Act has to be allowed separately in respect ofprofitmakingunitswithouttakingintoconsideration that all the units were part of thesame undertaking and recorded a _ perversfinding? 111.Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case and in law the Tribunalwas correct in holding that the revised return wasvalid without appreciating that there was aQmistake or omission in the original return and themethod of accounting was a change in view oOfSubmissionbeforethe|Tribunalinotherproceedings and recorded a perverse finding?”| 3.It has jointly been stated by learned counsel for|the parties that the second question of law is covered by thedecision ot this Court in the case of the same assessee inITA No.452/2008 dated 17.06.2014, wherein this questionhas been answered in favour of the assessee and against theRevenue. _— 4.Accordingly, for the reasons given in the said|judgment, the second question of law is answered in favourof the assessee and against the Revenue. 5.It has also been jointly stated that in view of second question having been answered in favour of theassessee, the third question becomes academic in natureand does not require to be considered. 6.As regards question No.1, what is noticed is thatthe Tribunal has decided the issue following its own decisionpassed in the case of the assessee for the earlier assessmentyear, which order has been set aside by this Court and the|matter has been remanded back to the Tribunal. T[.In view of the aforesaid, without answering the|first question, we remand the matter to the Tribunal for| deciding the same afresh in the light of the decision in | ITA No.235/2007 and ITA No.452/2008. The appeal stands disposed of.sd/-JUDGE|Sd/-.JUDGE|TTL