Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2020 (12) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (12) TMI 687 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURTAdhoc disallowance of 2.5% of dividend income as expenditure incurred on exempt income when the assessee had identified expenditure to be disallowed - HELD THAT:- From perusal of substantial question of law No.1, we find that the aforesaid substantial question of law is no longer res integra and has already been answered in favour of the assessee by the Supreme Court in 'GODREJ & BOYCE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LTD. VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AND ANR.', [2017 (5) TMI 403 - SUPREME COURT] . In view of aforesaid enunciation of law, the first substantial question of law is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Losses of a 10A/10AA unit as already set-off against other business income of the appellant, should be again carried forward and set-off against eligible profits of the same unit in a subsequent year - HELD THAT:- From perusal of para 17 of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in ‘COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. YOKOGAWA INDIA LTD.’, [2016 (12) TMI 881 - SUPREME COURT] we find that the second substantial question of law is also no longer res integra and has been answered in favour of the assessee by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the second substantial question of law is also answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Disallow the deferred compensation claimed by appellant as the claim does not fall within the parameters of sec.36(1)(iv) & (v) r.w.s. 40A(9) - excluding the computer software sales made to STP/SEZ units in India from "export turnover" for the purpose of computing deduction under Section 10A/10AA of the Act? - excluding the VAT / GST from export turnover and total turnover for the purpose of computing deduction under Section 10A/10AA - HELD THAT:- From perusal of judgment rendered by a bench of this court in 'WIPRO LTD. VS. DCIT' [2015 (10) TMI 826 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] we find that the aforesaid substantial question of law is also no longer res integra and has been answered in favour of the assessee. Therefore, the third , fourth and fifth substantial question of law is also answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue 80% of the uplinking charges excluded from the definition of turnover, when even the first responded had limited such exclusion to 5% of the telecommunication charges - HELD THAT:- This court in 'COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANOTHER VS. TATA ELXSI LTD.' [2016 (3) TMI 460 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] as well as para 21 of the Supreme Court in 'COMMISSINOER OF INCOME-TAX VS. HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD.',[2018 (5) TMI 357 - SUPREME COURT]we find that the sixth substantial question of law is also required to be answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.
|