Itta/747/2014 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iii v. M/S Virtusa [India] Private Limited

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTISENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A. No. 747 of 2014 DATED:21.01.2015 Between:The Commissioner of Income Tax –II,Hyderabad.And … Appellant M/s. Virtusa (India) Pvt. Ltd.,Hyderabad. ….Respondent THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTISENGUPTA ANDTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A. No. 747 of 2014 Judgment:(per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This appeal is sought to be preferred and admitted againstthe order of the learned Tribunal dated 24.8.2012 in relation to theassessment year 2006-2007 on the following suggested questionsof law: 1.In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether theHon’ble Tribunal (ITAT) is justified in law in not upholding theorder of the Assessing Officer excluding the communicationcharges and insurance charges from Export Turnover anddirecting the Assessing Officer to consider the “Principle ofParity” in deciding the issue ? 2.In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether theHon’ble Tribunal (ITAT) is justified in not upholding the orderof the Assessing Officer excluding the Reimbursed expensesfrom Export Turnover and directing the Assessing Officer toconsider the “Principle of Parity” in deciding the issue ? 3.In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether theHon’ble Tribunal (ITAT) is correct in law in upholding theorder of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)directing the Assessing Officer to consider the statutorydisallowances under Section 40A(3), Section 40A(7) andSection 43B of the Act as eligible business profits forcomputation of deduction under Section 10A of the Actwithout appreciating that the statutory disallowances are notprofits earned by the Respondent assessee ? We have heard Mr. B.Narasimha Sarma, learned counselappearing for the Revenue and have gone through the impugned judgment and order of the learned Tribunal. It appears, the learned Tribunal while deciding the appeal onthe points agitated before us, remanded the matter for hearing onthe issue of exclusion of communication charges and insurancefrom the total turn over. So, no decision has been rendered onmerits and there is no point of admitting the appeal on theaforesaid issue. We have noted the facts narrated in the impugnedorder. There is no allegation that the matter was remanded onabsurd ground. As far as the other issue is concerned, namely, thestatutory disallowances under Sections 40A(3), 40A(7) and 43-B ofthe Act in connection with the deduction under Section 10-A, wefind that the learned Tribunal decided the issue in favour of theassessee, following its earlier judgments in the case of PlanetOnline Pvt. Ltd., in I.T.A. No. 1016/Hyd/07 and Zawata India Pvt.Ltd., in I.T.A. No. 1100/Hyd/2009. It was not argued before us thatthe earlier decisions of the learned Tribunal have been upset orany appeals have been filed before this Court against thosedecisions. Therefore, we do not find any element of law for admittingthe appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the miscellaneous applications, if anypending, shall also stand closed. No order as to costs. __________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ _________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J