EIT Services India Private Limited (formerly known as Hewlett Packard Global Soft Private Limited), Bangalore V. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

MA 30/BANG/2022

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3659 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 05-07-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 06-04-2022
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRIYADARSHI MISHRA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.P. No. 30/Bang/2022 (in IT(TP)A No. 1455/Bang/2010) Assessment Year : 2006-07 M/s. EIT Services India Pvt. Ltd., (formerly known as Hewlett-Packard Globalsoft Pvt. Ltd.), Plot No. 39/40, Electronic City, Phase II, Hosur Road, Bangalore – 560 100. PAN: AAACD4078L Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 2 (1)(1), Bengaluru. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri N.K. Ranganth Kaushik Revenue by : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. CIT (DR) Date of Hearing : 03-06-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 06-07-2022 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present M.P. is filed by the assessee seeking adjudication of alleged non-adjudication of Ground no. 9 that was remanded by the Hon’ble High Court. 2. The Ld.AR submitted that the primary issues that was to be adjudicated by this Tribunal was “whether communication expenses and expenditure incurred in foreign currency are to be excluded from the export turnover for purposes of computation of relief u/s. 10A of the Act?” Page 2 of 3 M.P. No. 30/Bang/2022 (in IT(TP)A No. 1455/Bang/2010) 3. The Ld.AR submitted that this Tribunal in the impugned order dated 08/11/2021, instead of deciding the above issues allowed relief to the assessee by deciding the alternate relief claimed of reducing the expenses from both export turnover and total turnover. 4. The Ld.AR submitted that non-adjudication of the primary issues is a mistake apparent from record. 5. The Ld.DR on the contrary, relied on the order passed by this Tribunal dated 08/11/2021. 6. We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in the light of records placed before us. 7. We note that this Tribunal granted relief to the assessee on the alternate plea by excluding the expenditure from both export turnover and total turnover. This view has been taken by placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. HCL Technologies Ltd. reported in (2018) 93 taxmann.com 33. We also note that this Tribunal has recorded the view of Hon’ble Supreme Court on the preliminary issues raised by the assessee, which is stated to be allegedly not adjudicated in the present M.P. This Tribunal in para 6 of the impugned order reproduces the observation of Hon’ble Supreme Court. For sake of convenience, we reproduce the same as under: “6. Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that- "19. In the instant case, if the deductions on freight, telecommunication and insurance attributable to the delivery of computer software under Section 10A of the IT Act are allowed only in Export Turnover but not from the Total Turnover then, it would give rise to inadvertent, unlawful, meaningless and illogical result which would cause grave injustice to the Respondent which could have never been the intention of the legislature."” 8. It is due to the above categorical observation by Hon’ble Supreme Court that this Tribunal decide the alternate relief to the assessee by excluding the communication expenditure and foreign currency expenditure from both export turnover and total turnover. Page 3 of 3 M.P. No. 30/Bang/2022 (in IT(TP)A No. 1455/Bang/2010) 9. We therefore do not find any mistake apparent on record in impugned order dated 08/11/2021. However, it is clarified that respectfully following the observation of Hon’ble Supreme Court the preliminary issues remanded by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court is no longer resintegra. We accordingly do not find any merit in the present M.P. In the result, the M.P. filed by the assessee stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 06 th July, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (CHANDRA POOJARI) (BEENA PILLAI) Accountant Member Judicial Member Bangalore, Dated, the 06 th July, 2022. /MS / Copy to: 1. Appellant 4. CIT(A) 2. Respondent 5. DR, ITAT, Bangalore 3. CIT 6. Guard file By order Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore