THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A.No.531 of 2014 DATED:5.8.2014 Between:
The Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Hyderabad And Xilinx India Technology ServicesPvt. Ltd., Hyderabad.
… Appellant ….Respondent THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
I.T.T.A.No.531 of 2014
Judgment : (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This appeal is sought to be preferred and admitted against the judgment and order of the learned Tribunal dated 7.6.2013 on the following suggested questions of law:
1. In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the Hon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) is correct in law in holding that the statutory disallowances cannot be excluded from the income of the undertaking for computing the deduction under Section 10A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) and directing the Assessing Officer to re- compute the said deduction under Section 10A of the Act, without excluding the statutory disallowances from the income derived from the undertaking ?
2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the Hon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) is correct in law in directing the Assessing Officer to reduce the communication, insurance and professional charges both from export turn over as well as total turnover though such an adjustment is not contemplated under Section 10A of the Act ?
We have heard Mr. B. Narasimha Sarma, learned counsel and have gone through the impugned judgment and order fo the learned Tribunal.
It appears, the learned Tribunal has followed the decision [1] rendered in the case of CIT vs. Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd., and also the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of [2] CIT vs. Tata Elxsi Limited and of the Special Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad rendered in the case of ITO vs. Saks Soft Limited, where the Tribunal has decided the same issue.
We, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with impugned judgment and order of the learned Tribunal. Hence, we dismiss this appeal.
The miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed. No costs.
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ 5th August, 2014 pnb SANJAY KUMAR, J
[1] [330 ITR 175]
[2] [349 ITR 90]