Ita/543/2013 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Business Process Outsourcing India Pvt Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURUDATBD THIS THER DAY OF JANUARY, 2015 PRESENT THR HON' BLE MR. JUSTICK N.KUMAR ANT) THR HON' BLE MR. JUSTICEK B. VEBRAPPA INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 5433/201 BERITIWE 1.)THR COMMISSIONBR OF INCOME-TAX C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE iaTHE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(1),| RASHTROTHANA BHAVAN, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE. _ APPKRLLANTS~ (BY SRI K V ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) ANT) M/S. BUSINESS PROCESSOUTSOURCING INDIA PVT. LTD., SALARPURIA HALLMARK, GROUND FLOOR,A BLOCK, 15/3,16, KADUBEESANAHALLI, OUTER RING ROAD,BANGALORE-560 O8 /. —. RBSPONDBENT (BY SRI K.R. VASUDEVAN, ADVOCATE) THIS [TTA IS FILED UNDER SECTION J6O0-A OTHE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER|DATED|07.06.2013.PASSEDIN|ITANO.602/BANG/2011, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-O05 PRAYING TO FORMULATR THR SUBSTANTIALQUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN AND TO)ALLOW THR APPEAL AND SBT ASIDE THR ORDER|PASSED BY THE I.T.A.T. BANGALORE IN IT(T.P.)ANO.602/BANG/2011, DATED 07.06.2013 CONFIRMINGTHR ORDBR OF THR APPBLLATR COMMISSIONER|AND CONFIRM THR ORDER PASSED BY THE INCOME|TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(1), BANGALORE.| THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL COMING ON FORADMISSION THIS DAY, N. KUMAR, J., DELIVERED|THR FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT The revenue has preferred this appeal against eranting relief to the assessee. The substantial question of law raised in this appeal is as under: “Whether on the facts and in _ thcircumstances and in law the Tribunal is correct in holding that the expenditureincurred in foreign currency excludedfrom export turnover has to be excludedfrom total turnover when there is noprovision in section 10OA to exclude fromtotal turnover?” ”.. This Court had an occasion to consider thesubstantialquestionoT|law,in.theCa SEoT|COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AND ANOTHER vp. TATA ELXS!] LTDreported in.(2012) 349 ITR 98(Karn),wherein, aiter referring to the various provisions|of law and the judgments of various Courts, the saidsubstantial question of law has been answered in favourof the assessee and against the revenue. Accordingly,as the said substantial question of law is alreadyanswered by this Court, no case for admission is madeOut. 3.|However, it is submitted that the revenue — has preferred an appeal to the Apex Court against thejudgment of this Court, which is pending consideration. 4In the event of the revenue succeeding in theappeal before the Apex Court then the assessingauthority shall pass consequential order in terms ofsection 260(1A) of the Income Tax Act 1961. Withtheaforesaidobservation,appeal1S.dismissed. od/-|JUDGE| Sd/-JUDGE JUDGE Sbs*