Dismissed

Principal Commissioner of v. M/S Tata Elxsi Ltd.

Karnataka HC22 Oct 2021ITA/336/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal filed an appeal under Section 260-A alleging infirmities in the Tribunal's order regarding export turnover and Section 10A. The High Court found the Tribunal's reliance on coordinate benches was correct and found no perversity in the Tribunal's order.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed. Substantial questions of law answered in favour of the assessee against the Revenue.

Principal Commissioner of Vs M/S Tata Elxsi Ltd. — Income Tax | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶7

I.T.A.No.336/2019

¶8

BETWEEN :

¶9

1 . PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF OF INCOME TAX-7, BMTC COMPLEX KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU

¶10

2 . THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BMTC COMPLEX KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU ...APPELLANTS

¶11

(BY SRI E.I.SANMATHI, ADV.)

¶12

AND :

¶13

M/s TATA ELXSI LTD., ITBP ROAD, HOODY, WHITEFIELD, BANGALORE-560048 PAN: AAACT7872Q …RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI T.SURYANARAYANA, ADV.)

¶15

THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 05.12.2018 PASSED IN ITA NO.1516/BANG/2017 (ANNEXURE-A) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-2011, PRAYING TO A. DECIDE THE FOREGOING QUESTION OF LAW AND/OR SUCH OTHER QUESTIONS OF LAW AS MAY BE FORMULATED BY THE HONBLE COURT AS DEEMED FIT. B. SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 05.12.2018 PASSED

¶16

¶17

BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 'C' BENCH, BANGALORE, IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS ITA NO.1516/BANG/2017 (ANNEXURE-A) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-2011 AS SOUGHT FOR IN THIS APPEAL.

¶18

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, S. SUJATHA, J ., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

This appeal is filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short) assailing the order dated 05.12.2018 passed in ITA No.1516/Bang/2017 by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ Bench, Bengaluru (‘Tribunal’ for short) relating to the assessment year 2010-11.

¶21

The appeal is admitted to consider the following substantial questions of law:-

¶22

“1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside the disallowance of Rs.62,65,142/- treated by the assessing authority as income from other sources as against claim of assessee treating the same as export turnover by relying upon the decision in the case of CIT v/s. Hewlett

¶23

¶24

Packard Global Soft Ltd., [reported in 402 ITR page 453 [Kar. FB] even though the said decision has not reached finality and considering the materials on record the said amount cannot be treated as part of export turnover?

¶25

2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside the disallowance of Rs.27,68,91,445/- by holding that the same can be considered as part of export turnover by relying upon the decision of this Hon’ble High Court in Wipro Ltd v/s CIT in ITA No.879 of 2008 dt: 25-3-2015 even though the assessing authority rightly reduced the said amount from export turnover since the said amount was not realized in foreign currency before the due date of filing the return of income?”

¶26

Learned counsel appearing for both the

¶27

parties submit ad-idem that the substantial question of law No.1 is directly covered by the decision of the Coordinate bench of this Court in Principal

¶28

¶29

Commissioner of Income Tax and another vs. M/s. Tata Elxsi Ltd., [ITA No.335/2019 (D.D. 25.02.2020)] arising out of the common order passed by the Tribunal.

¶30

The Co-ordinate bench of this Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue placing reliance on the ruling of the full bench of this Court in the case of CIT vs. M/s. Hewlett Packard Global Soft Ltd., reported in (2018) 402 ITR 454 (Kar. FB) observing that the order of the Tribunal does not suffer from any perversity and infirmity, as such no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the appeal.

¶31

In view of the said decision of the Co-

¶32

ordinate bench of this Court, we have no reason to differ from the same and accordingly, the substantial question of law No.1 is answered in favour of assessee and against the Revenue.

¶33

¶34

6. Regarding substantial question of law No.2,

¶35

learned counsel for the Revenue made an attempt to distinguish the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Wipro Ltd., vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax reported in (2015) 62 taxmann.com 26 (Karnataka), which has been relied on by the Tribunal in dismissing the appeal of the Revenue. Learned counsel referring to the paragraph No.6.1 of the order of the Assessing Officer submitted that no evidence was placed by the assessee before the Assessing Officer to avail the benefit of Section 10A of the Act. Hence, it is submitted that the matter requires remand to the Assessing Officer.

¶36

7. Learned counsel for the assessee strongly

¶37

relying on the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this

¶38

Court in Wipro Ltd., supra would submit that the Assessing Officer has only observed that no evidence of getting any RBI’s permission was placed before the

¶39

¶40

Assessing Officer for realizing the amount in foreign exchange after due date of filing return of income.

¶41

We have perused the judgment of the Co-

¶42

ordinate bench of this Court in Wipro Ltd., supra, wherein their lordships have categorically observed that after the period of six months, if foreign exchange remittances are received and credited to the assessee’s account through the Reserve Bank of India and in this context, merely because the written approval of extension was not passed by the Reserve Bank of India, the assessee could not be denied benefit of Section 10A.

¶43

This finding of the Co-ordinate Bench decision would certainly assist the assessee. The Tribunal has rightly dismissed the appeal of the Revenue placing reliance on this judgment. The arguments of the learned counsel for the Revenue inasmuch as no evidence is unsustainable. We do not find any infirmity or perversity in the order impugned herein. Hence, we answer substantial

¶44

¶45

question of law No.2 in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

¶46

In the result, the appeal stands dismissed.

¶47

Sd/JUDGE

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

PMR