TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 595X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Justice R. Mahadevan And The Honourable Mr.Justice Mohammed Shaffiq For the Appellant : Mrs.V.Pushpa, Junior Standing counsel For the Respondent : Mr.S.Gopalakrishnan, for Official Liquidator COMMON JUDGMENT R. MAHADEVAN, J. These tax case appeals have been filed by the appellant / Revenue, challenging the order dated 05.11.2008 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai -C Bench, in I.TA.Nos.202, 203 and 204/Mds/2008, relating to the assessment years 1999-2000, 2000-01 and 2003-04. 2. By order dated 20.09.2011, this court admitted the aforesaid tax case appeals on the following substantial questions of law: T.C.(A).No.399 of 2011:- Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the case of ? Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Mphasis Ltd? reported in [2020] 113 taxmann.com 74 decided on 13.11.2019, has affirmed the view taken by the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that such expenditure incurred by the Assessee in foreign currency will be includible in the definition of 'export turnover' for the purpose of computing deduction under Section 10B of the Act. 6. The relevant portion of the judgment of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in ?CIT Vs Mphasis Ltd.,? reported in [2016] 74 taxmann.com 274 (Karnataka) is quoted below for ready reference. ? 2. The first substantial question of law arose for consideration before this Court in ITA No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e law makes a distinction between technical services rendered in connection with export of computer software and export of technical services for the purpose of development or production of computer software outside India. If the technical services rendered by the assessee's Engineers is in connection with the export of computer software for the purpose of testing, installation and monitoring of software such a turnover do not fall within clause (ii) of subsection (1) of section 80HHE of the Act. Such a turnover falls within sub-clause (i) of subsection (1) of Section 80HHE of the Act, that is export out of India of computer software or its transmission from India to a place outside India by any means. The expenditure incurred in the fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act. Therefore, the said expenditure cannot be excluded in computing export turn over. In that view of the matter we do not see any merit in this appeal. Accordingly, the said question of law is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Ordered accordingly. 3. In view of the said judgment, the substantial question of law is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. 4. Insofar as the second substantial question of law is concerned, the same was considered by this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax And Another Vs. Tata Elxsi Ltd., reported in (2012) 349 ITR 98 (Karn) . It has been held as under :- From the aforesaid judgments, what emerges is that, there should be uniformity in the ingr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the export turnover as a component of total turnover in the denominator. The reason being the total turnover includes export turnover. The components of the export turnover in the numerator and the denominator cannot be different. Therefore, though there is no definition of the term 'total turnover' in Section 10-A, there is nothing in the said Section to mandate that, what is excluded from the numerator that is export turnover would nevertheless form part of the denominator. Though when a particular word is not defined by the legislature and an ordinary meaning is to be attributed to the same, the said ordinary meaning to be attributed to such word is to be in conformity with the context in which it is used. When the statute presc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the petitioner-Revenue assailing the judgment dated 01.08.2014 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in I.T.A.No.1075 of 2008. 2. When the petition is taken up for consideration, Mr.Vikramjit Banerjee, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the petitioner-Revenue and Mr.Parcy Pardiwala, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent, are in agreement that SLP (C) No.2373/2015 preferred by the Revenue in respect of connected ITA No.196 of 2009 which was disposed of by the very same common order dated 01.08.2014 was dismissed by this Court on 28.01.2019 having taken note similar grounds raised in the special leave petition. 3. Hence taking note of the fact that in respect of common judgment this Court has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
