Facts of the Case
The Revenue, through the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax
and the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, filed an appeal under Section 260A
of the Income-tax Act, 1961 against M/s Wipro Limited.
The appeal arose from the order dated 5 October 2020 passed by
the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in IT(TP)A No. 467/Bang/2015 for Assessment
Year 2010–2011.
At the stage of admission before the Karnataka High Court, the
Revenue sought permission to include an additional substantial question of law
as Question No. 19. The proposed question concerned whether the Tribunal was
justified in directing the Assessing Authority to include VAT/GST in export
turnover for the purpose of computing deduction under Section 10A of the
Income-tax Act, 1961, on the basis that the export profits realised by the
assessee included such VAT/GST.
The Revenue questioned the Tribunal’s reliance on the
Karnataka High Court’s earlier decision in the assessee’s own case,
particularly because, according to the Revenue, the issue had not attained
finality and Special Leave Petitions had been filed before the Hon’ble Supreme
Court.
The respondent-assessee raised no objection to inclusion of the additional question. Accordingly, the High Court permitted its inclusion as Question No. 19.
Issues Involved
The principal issues before the High Court included:
- Whether
Questions Nos. 1 to 12, 14, 15, 18 and 19 raised by the Revenue were
already covered against the Revenue by the Karnataka High Court’s earlier
decision in M/s Wipro Limited vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,
ITA No. 879/2008 and connected matters, decided on 25 March 2015.
- Whether
VAT/GST was required to be included in export turnover for computing
deduction under Section 10A where the export profits realised by the
assessee were stated to include such VAT/GST.
- Whether
Questions Nos. 13, 16 and 17 required adjudication in the present appeal
or could be kept open.
- Whether the rights and liabilities of the parties should remain governed by the final outcome of Civil Appeal No. 5391/2016 pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Appellants’ / Revenue’s Arguments
The Revenue sought leave of the Court to add Question No. 19
concerning inclusion of VAT/GST in export turnover for the purpose of computing
deduction under Section 10A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
The Revenue’s proposed question specifically challenged the
Tribunal’s direction to the Assessing Authority to include VAT/GST in export
turnover where the export profits realised by the assessee were stated to
include VAT/GST.
The Revenue further highlighted that the Tribunal had relied
upon the Karnataka High Court’s decision in the assessee’s own case, while the
Revenue maintained that the matter had not reached finality because Special
Leave Petitions had been filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
The Revenue also submitted that the issues involved in the
appeal were the subject matter of Civil Appeal No. 5391/2016 pending
consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Accordingly, it requested the
High Court to record that the parties would be governed by the final outcome of
the said civil appeal.
Further, at the request of the Revenue, Questions Nos. 13, 16 and 17 were kept open.
Respondent-Assessee’s Arguments
The respondent, M/s Wipro Limited, did not object to the
Revenue’s request for inclusion of the additional Question No. 19.
The assessee submitted that Questions Nos. 1 to 12, 14, 15, 18
and 19 were already covered against the Revenue by the Karnataka High Court’s
earlier decision in:
M/s Wipro Limited vs The Deputy Commissioner of
Income Tax, ITA No. 879/2008 and connected matters, decided on 25 March
2015.
The Revenue did not dispute this submission.
The assessee also raised no objection to the Revenue’s request that the parties should be governed by the final outcome of Civil Appeal No. 5391/2016 pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Court’s Findings
The Karnataka High Court recorded that the assessee’s
submission regarding Questions Nos. 1 to 12, 14, 15, 18 and 19 being covered by
the earlier decision in the assessee’s own case was not disputed by the
Revenue.
Accordingly, the Court held that:
Questions Nos. 1 to 12, 14, 15, 18 and 19 stood
covered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.
The Court further accepted the request that:
Questions Nos. 13, 16 and 17 would remain open.
The Court also took note of the Revenue’s submission that the
issues involved were the subject matter of Civil Appeal No. 5391/2016 pending
before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Since the assessee had no objection, the High
Court directed that:
The parties would be governed by the outcome of Civil Appeal No. 5391/2016.
Court Order
The Karnataka High Court disposed of the Revenue’s appeal with
the following directions:
- Questions
Nos. 1 to 12, 14, 15, 18 and 19 were held to be covered against the
Revenue and in favour of the assessee.
- Questions
Nos. 13, 16 and 17 were kept open.
- The
parties were directed to be governed by the outcome of Civil Appeal No.
5391/2016.
- No order as to costs was passed.
Important Clarification
The judgment should not be understood as an independent
detailed adjudication by the High Court on the merits of every question raised
in the Revenue’s appeal.
The decisive clarification is that Questions Nos. 1 to 12, 14,
15, 18 and 19 were treated as already covered against the Revenue by the
Karnataka High Court’s earlier ruling in the assessee’s own case.
Further, Questions Nos. 13, 16 and 17 were expressly kept
open. Therefore, the present judgment did not finally determine those
questions.
Most importantly, the High Court expressly directed that the parties would be governed by the final outcome of Civil Appeal No. 5391/2016. Accordingly, the operative position recorded in the judgment remains linked to the outcome of that proceeding before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Section Involved
·
Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961
· Section 10A of the Income-tax Act, 1961
Link to download the order -
https://www.mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1783320271_1153compressed.pdf
Disclaimer
This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.
0 Comments
Leave a Comment