THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
I.T.T.A. No. 425 of 2014
DATED:17.07.2014 Between:
The Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Hyderabad.
And M/s. Avineon India Pvt. 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. 425 of 2014
Judgment: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta)
This appeal is sought to be preferred against the judgment and order of the learned Tribunal dated 31.10.2013 in relation to the assessment year 2007-08 on the following suggested questions of law.
1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the Tribunal is not perverse in rejecting comparables without giving any reasons or findings on fact and by merely following decisions of Tribunal in cases based on their own respective facts ?
2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in rejecting comparables having high turnovers high profit margin etc., is not contrary to the norms prescribed in the Rules laid down in Rule 10B of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 ?
3. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that deduction under Section 10A of the Act should be computed without setting off of brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation of other units by following the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT vs. Yokogawa India Ltd., (341 ITR 385 (Kar) without appreciating that Section 10A is a section providing for deduction and not exemption ?
Taking the first question of law, after hearing Mr. Prasad, we considered the impugned judgment and order of the learned Tribunal. This question itself is not tenable on the face of it as nothing wrong has been done by the learned Tribunal in following the earlier decisions. When the learned Tribunal reached the finding that the decision on the issue is applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case, we cannot examine unless there is a challenge to those decisions in an appeal.
As far as the second question is concerned, similar is the situation where the learned Tribunal has followed the ratio of the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Market Tools [1] Research Pvt. Ltd., vs. ACIT . The learned Tribunal has also taken note of the decision of the learned Tribunal in the case of [2] Zavata India Pvt.Ltd., vs. DCIT .
We, therefore, do not find any element of law to be decided in this appeal as nothing has been said about the pendency of an appeal challenging the said judgment of the learned Tribunal.
As far as the third question is concerned, we notice that the learned Tribunal has followed the judgment of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Yokogawa India [3] Ltd. Mr. Prasad says that an S.L.P. is pending against the above decision. We think that the pendency of the S.L.P. does not render a ground to challenge the same before us. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal.
Consequently, the miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed. No costs.
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ 17th July, 2014 pnb
[1] [35 ITAT 2013 (HYD)]
[2] [TS-156-ITAT 2013) (Hyd)
[3] 341 ITR 385 (Kar) SANJAY KUMAR, J