THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V. M/S IGATE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD

ITA/489/2013

AI Insights

The case involves the Commissioner of Income Tax and the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax as appellants against M/S. IGATE Global Solutions Ltd. as the respondent. The appeal was filed under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961, challenging the order passed by the ITAT, Bangalore, which had earlier allowed certain deductions claimed by the assessee for the assessment year 2004-05. The main legal issues revolved around the admissibility of expenditures incurred in foreign exchange for rendering technical services, the treatment of different units of the assessee as independent undertakings for the purpose of Section 10A deductions, and the validity of a revised return filed by the assessee.

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 728792 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 20-11-2015
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: ITA No.452/2008, ITA No.235/2007
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: T SURYANARAYANA
• Assessee Lawyers: K V ARAVIND
• Keywords: Deduction; Foreign Exchange; Income tax appeal; Revised return; Technical Services
• Section: 260A; 10A

Judgement Text

" 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2015 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEET SARAN AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR ITA NO.489/2013 BETWEEN: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX C R BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(4) RASHTROTHANA BHAVAN NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. K.V.ARAVIND, ADV.) AND: M/S.IGATE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD., NO.158-162 & 165-170, EPIP PHASE II, WHITEFIELD, BANGALORE-560 066. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI T.SURYANARAYANA, ADV.,) THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SEC.260A OF IT ACT, 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 10.05.2013 PASSED IN ITA NO.427/BANG/2012, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05, PRAYING TO I. FORMULTE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW II. ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ITAT, BANGALORE, AND CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONR CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(4), BANGALORE. THIS ITA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, VINEET SARAN J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 JUDGMENT We have heard Sri K.V.Aravind, learned counsel for the appellants-Revenue as well as Sri T.Suryanarayana, learned counsel for the respondent-assessee and perused the record. 2. This appeal has been filed by the Revenue raising the following substantial questions of law: “i. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was correct in holding that the expenditure towards payment to employees, legal and professional charges, travel and power charges incurred in foreign exchange cannot be expenses incurred outside India for rendering technical services without examining the purpose for which expenditure is incurred? ii. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was justified in holding that, units at Pune, Chennai and Bangalore were independent undertakings and deduction under Section 10A of the Act has to be allowed separately in respect of profit making units without taking into consideration that all the units were part of the same undertaking and recorded a perverse finding? iii. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was correct in holding that the revised return was valid without appreciating that there was a mistake or omission in the original return and the method of accounting was a change in view of submission before the Tribunal in other proceedings and recorded a perverse finding?” 3 3. It has jointly been stated by learned counsel for the parties that the second question of law is covered by the decision of this Court in the case of the same assessee in ITA No.452/2008 dated 17.06.2014, wherein this question has been answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. 4. Accordingly, for the reasons given in the said judgment, the second question of law is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. 5. It has also been jointly stated that in view of second question having been answered in favour of the assessee, the third question becomes academic in nature and does not require to be considered. 6. As regards question No.1, what is noticed is that the Tribunal has decided the issue following its own decision passed in the case of the assessee for the earlier assessment year, which order has been set aside by this Court and the matter has been remanded back to the Tribunal. 7. In view of the aforesaid, without answering the first question, we remand the matter to the Tribunal for 4 deciding the same afresh in the light of the decision in ITA No.235/2007 and ITA No.452/2008. The appeal stands disposed of. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE TL "