M/S Secon Pvt. Ltd.,, Bangalore vs Department Of Income Tax
- CitationITA No.682/Bang/2014
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal's reasoning rests on the following principle: where the Commissioner (Appeals) has followed a decision of the jurisdictional High Court in directing that an item not included in export turnover be excluded from total turnover in computing deduction under section 10A, the pendency of a Special Leave Petition against that High Court decision is not, by itself, a sufficient reason to interfere with the Commissioner (Appeals)'s direction, and the appeal of the Revenue is to be dismissed on that basis.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 12(3), Bangalore. ... Appellant
Vs.
M/s.Secon Pvt. Ltd. No.147, 7B Road, (EPIP), Whitefield, Bangalore-560056. ... Respondent PAN: AAECS6269A
Appellant by: Dr. P.K.Srihari, Addl.CIT. Respondent by: Shri Tata Krishna, Advocate.
Date of hearing : 10-03-2015. Date of pronouncement: 20-03-2015.
O R D E R
Per ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, AM:
This is a departmental appeal in which it assails the order of
the CIT(A) to exclude re-imbursement of certain expenditure, not
considered as part of export turnover by the Assessing Officer
(AO), from the total turnover also while computing the deduction
available to the assessee under sec.10A of the Income-tax Act,
1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short]. ITA No.682/Bang/2014
M/s.Secon Pvt.Ltd.
Page 2 of 2
2. We have heard the counsel for both sides. CIT(A) had
relied on the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in the case
of CIT vs. Tata Elxsi (349 ITR 98) for directing the exclusion of the
item not included in export turnover from the total turnover also.
Just because Special Leave Petition filed against the above
judgment in the Supreme Court, will not in our opinion, be a good
reason to disturb the directions given by CIT(A), yielding to
wisdom of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court. We thus do not
find any reason to interfere with the order of the ld.CIT(A).
3. Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
Pronounced in the open court on 20th March, 2015.
sd/- sd/- (N.V.Vasudevan) (Abraham P.Jeorge) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER eksrinivasulu
Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 6. Guard file By order
Assistant Registrar
Income-tax Appellate tribunal Bangalore
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free