Ita/668/2015 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. M/S. Business Process

IN THR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATRD THIS THE 31 DAY OF MARCH 2016 PRESENT THR HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL AND THR HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.h668/2015 BETWEEN: 1)THR COMMISSIONBR OF INCOME-TAX_![‘T]FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING,![‘T]FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA,BANGALORE — 560 095..BANGALORE — 560 095.. a2THR INCOMB-TAX OFFICER WARD-11(1) 2 FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING,80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA,BANGALORE — 560 095..80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA,BANGALORE — 560 095.. _. APPELLANTS (BY SRILK.V.ARAVIND, STANDING COUNSEL). AND: M/S. BUSINESS PROCESSOUTSOURCING (INDIA) PVT. LTD., TOWER 2D, VRINDAVAN TECH VILLAGE, In view of the order passed on 19.08.2016, earlier order dated 31.03.2016 is withdrawn and fresh order is passed separately in ITA No.668/2016. The order passed in ITA No.668/15 c/w ITA No.678/15 on 31.03.2016 is kept for record purpose. * Separate order is passed vide Court order dated 19.08.2016 DEVARABEESANAHALLI, ORR,BANGALORE — 560 037PAN: AABCB 5293N)_ RESPONDENT THIS INCOMB TAX APPBAL [IS FILED UNDERSEC.2600-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUTOF ORDER DATED:24/07/2015 PASSED IN ITA NO.677/BANG/2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-29008 PRAYING TO FORMULATKR THR SUBSTANTIAQUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE AND ALLOW)THR APPEAL AND SBHT ASIDE THR ORDERS PASSEDBYTHEITAT,BRENGALURUIN|ITANO.677/BANG/2012DATED:24/07/2015AND,CONFIRMINGTH EORDERORTHEAPPBRLLATECOMMISSIONBR AND CONFIRM THR ORDER PASSED|BYTHEINCOMETAX|OFFICER,WARD-11(1),|BENGALURU.. THIS APPBAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THISDAY,JAYANTPATELJ*)fDELIVEREDTHEKHOLLOWING: JUDGMBNT The appellant-Revenue has preferred this appealby raising the following substantial questions of law: “1. Whether the Tribunal is justified indirecting the assessing officer to recomputedthe deduction under section 410A $$ afreducing those expenses that were reducedonly from export turnover, to reduce from the total turnover also, without appreciatingthat there is no provision in section 10AA to.the effect that such expenses should also bereduced from the total turnover, as clause(iv) of the Explanation to Section 10A)provides that such expenses have to be|reduced only from the export turnover? 2. Whether the Tribunal was justified,on the facts and in the circumstances of the|case, in allowing relief to the assessee relyingon the decision of the Hon’ble High Court ofKarnataka which has not reached its finalityand SLP has been filed against such orderon this issue in the case of Tata Elxsi Ltd|349 ITR 93(KAR)? 2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant- Revenue Mr.K.V.Aravind as well as Sri K.|l.Sanmathlconcede that the issue is as such covered by Tata ElxsiLtd 349 ITR 98(KAR). However, they submit that thematter is carried before the Apex Court and SLP ispending. 3. In our view, when the issues are already covered by the decision of this Court, it cannot be said that any substantial questions of law would arise forconsideration. — 4. Hence, the present appeal deserves to bedismissed but with an observation that, in the event,the Apex Court takes a different view, the Revenue maybe at liberty to take appropriate action in accordancewith law. | Oo. subject to the abovesaid observation, theappeal is dismissed. | ok/- Sd/-.JUDGE| Sd/-.JUDGE|