Dy.Director Of Income - tax,, Bangalore v. Samsung Electronics Co.Ltd,, Bangalore

ITA 142/BANG/2011 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 04-11-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 14221114 RSA 2011
Assessee PAN AACCS8960N
Bench Bangalore
Appeal Number ITA 142/BANG/2011
Duration Of Justice 8 month(s) 18 day(s)
Appellant Dy.Director Of Income - tax,, Bangalore
Respondent Samsung Electronics Co.Ltd,, Bangalore
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 04-11-2011
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 04-11-2011
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 15-02-2011
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH A BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.K.SAINI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. P MADHAVI DEVI JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO.142(BANG.)/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07) THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-II(1) 6 TH FLOOR R.P.BHAVAN NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE APPELLANT VS M/S SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LTD. INDIA SOFTWARE OPERATIONS BAGMANE LAKEVIEW BAGMANE TECHPARK C.V.RAMANNAGAR BYRASANDRA BANGALORE. PAN NO.AACCS8960N RESPONDEN T REVENUE BY : SHRI ETWA MUNDA CIT-III ASSESSEE BY : SHRI PRAKASH HEGDE CA DATE OF HEARING : 31-10 -2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04- 11-011 O R D E R PER SMT P. MADHAVI DEVI JM ; THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE RELATES TO ASSESSMENT YE AR 2006-07. 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN ITS APPEAL. 1.THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL O THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS OPPOSED TO LAW EQUITY FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. ITA.NO.142(B)/11 2 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE EXPENSES OF RS.11 18 23 722/- NOT ONLY FROM THE EXPORT TURNOVER BUT ALSO FROM THE TOTAL TURNOVER. 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE PRESENT DECISION HAS ALSO BEEN UPHELD BY THE HONBLE CHENNAI BENCH IN THE CASE OF SAK SOFT LTD. 313 ITR 353(AT) WHICH IS NOT A JURISDICTIONAL BENCH. 4. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT SEC.10A IS A SELF CONTAINED CODE THEREFORE PROVISIONS OF SEC.80HHE ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE. 2. THOUGH LEARNED DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ON THE OTHER H AND SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF T HE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNA L AT CHENNAI IN THE CASE OF ITO VS M/S SAK SOFT LTD. R EPORTED IN 313 ITR 353(SB) CHENNAI AND DECISIONS OF THE HONBL E BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S GEM PLUS JEWEL LERY INDIA LTD. 2010-TIOL-456-HC-MUMBAI-IT AND ALSO OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS M/S QUALITY ENGINEERING& SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD . AND OTHERS DATED 30-08-2011. TAKING THE ABOVE SUBMISSI ONS INTO CONSIDERATION WE HOLD THAT THE ABOVE ISSUE RAISED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE US WAS CONSIDERED BY THE CIT(A) IN G IVING RELIEF ITA.NO.142(B)/11 3 TO THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THE SAME THERE IS NO M ERIT IN THE REVENUES APPEAL AND IT IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 3. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 4 TH NOVEMBER 2011. SD/- SD/- ( N.K.SAINI) (SMT. P . MADHAVI DEVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER PLACE: BANGALORE DATED: 04-11-2011 AM* COPY TO : 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE REVENUE 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR 6. GF(BLORE) BY ORDER AR ITAT BANGALORE