Ita/490/2013 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Igate Global Solutions Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BBNGALURU DATED THIS THE 20 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 20109 PRESENT THR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICEK VINBBT SARAN AND THR HON’BLEB MR. JUSTICK MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR ITA NO.490/2013 BETWEEN: 1]THE COMMISSIONBR OF INCOME TAX C R BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE. oD 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, 19061ARISING OUT OF ORDEBR DATBD 10.05.2013 PASSBD IN ITANO.429/BANG/2012, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05,PRAYING TO I. FORMULTE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OFLAW I[{[. ALLOW THR APPKBAL AND SHIT ASIDE THR ORDPASSED BY THE ITAT, BANGALORE, CONFIRMING THE ORDER|OF THR APPKRLLATK COMMISSIONR AND CONFIRM THR ORDERPASSED 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 expenditure|incurred in foreign currency excluded from exportturnover has to be excluded from total turnoverwhen there its no provision in Section 10A toexclude from total turnover?| 11.Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case and in law the Tribunalwas correct in holding that the assessee is.entitled to deduction under Section 10A of the Actin respect of the Transfer Pricing adjustments|made as a apart of profits and gains of the|business contrary to Section 92C of the ActP” 3.|Learned counsel for the parties have jointlystated that the second question raised in this appeal is|covered by the decision of this Court in the case of the sameassessee in ITA No.4952/2008 dated 17.06.2014. _ 4As such, for the reasons given in the aforesaid|judgment, the second question of law is answered in favourof the assessee and against the revenue. 5.However, insofar as the first question of law is concerned, learned counsel for the parties have stated thatthe said question is covered by the decision of this Court in the case oftCommissioner of Income Tax -vus- Tata ElxstLimited (2012) 349 ITR 98wherein the question has been|answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.As such, the first question is accordingly answered in favour|of the assesee and against the Revenue. 6.It is submitted by learned counsel for the|appellants that against the judgment of this Court in thecase otTata Elxsi (supra), an appeal is filed to the Apex|Court and is pending consideration. T.In the event of the Apex Court reversing the|judgment of this Court, the assessing authority shall pass|consequential orders in terms of Section 260(1)(A) of theIncome Tax Act, 1961, in conformity with the outcome of theappeal before the Supreme Court. With the above observation,the appeal standsdismissed. | Sd/- | JUDGE| Sd/-. JUDGE| TL