Ita/75/2012 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. Bioplus Life Sciences Pvt., Ltd

IN THB HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALOREDATED THIS THE 7 DAY OF JULY 2014 PRESEHBN THR HON BLE MR. JUSTICE N. KUMAR. AND THR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICK B MANOHAR. ITA No.75 OF 2012 BETWEEN; 1. The Commissioner of Income-Tax, C R Building, Queens Road, Bangalore. 2.The Deputy Commissioner of ©Income Tax, Circle-11(2)C R Building, Queens Road,Bangalore. _ APPKRLLANTS (By Sri K V Aravind, Advocate) AND: M/s.Bioplus Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., site No.10/1A, KrishnarajapuramHobli, Hoodi VillageBangalore-560 048.— RBSPONDEBENT (By Sri 8S. Parthasarathi, Advocate) -Q-O-O-O- This ITA is filed under Section 260-A of I.T. Act,|1961 arising out of Order dated 4.11.2011 passed inITA.No.1437/BANG/2010, for the Assessment Year2007-08 praying to formulate the substantial questions of law stated therein and to allow the appeal and setaside the order dated 4.11.2011 passed by the ITAT,Bangalore in ITA No.1437/BANG/2010 and confirm theorder of Appellate Commissioner confirming the orderpassed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,Circle-11(2), Bangalore. This appeal coming on for hearing this day,N.,KUMAR, J.delivered the following:- JUDGMENT The revenue has preferred this appeal against the. order passed by the appellate Tribunal holding that thefreight charges are required to be reduced from theexport turnover and total turnover for the purpose ofcomputing deduction under Section 10B of the Act. 2 |The above appeal is admitted for considering following substantial question of law:- “Whether the Tribunal was correctin holding that the freight charges are|required to be reduced from the “exportturnover and “total turnover” for thepurpose of computing deduction under|section 1OB of the Act even though such|exclusion is not contemplated in thecase of total turnover?” 3.|The said question arose for consideration before this Court in the case ofCommissioner ofIncome Tax .vs. Tata Elxsit Limited |(2012) 349 ITR 98(Karn)/where the said substantial question of law isanswered in favour of the assessee and against therevenue. Therefore, the substantial question of lawframed in this appeal is also answered in favour of theassessee and against the revenue. 3.|However, it is submitted that the revenuehas preferred an appeal against the aforesaid judgmentbefore the Supreme Court. In the event of revenuesucceeding in the appeal before the Supreme Court, theassessing Authority shall proceed to pass consequentialorders under Section 260(1)(A) of the Act. *alb/-. Sd/-| JUDGE. Sd/-. JUDGE.