2015 (6) TMI 324 - HC - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - commissioner had held that the computation of deduction u/s.10A of the Act when computing total income should be in respect of both STP units as well as non-STP units i.e., in respect of the entire company - Held that - We are unable to accept the said submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants, as by accepting the return filed by the assessee in which the requisite details had been given, it was not necessary for the Assessing Officer to give detailed reasons, although it could be said that had such reasons been given, it may have been better. However, the order cannot be said to be erroneous in sofar as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue or taken up for revision under Section 263 of the Act, merely because no reasons had been given, even though the order of the Assessing Officer was in terms of the amended provision of Section 10A(4) of the Act. As such, we are of the view that no substantial question of law arises for determination of this Court. - Decided against revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of Section 10A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 post-amendment.

Analysis:

1. Interpretation of Section 10A Post-Amendment:
The main issue in this case revolved around the interpretation of the amendment brought in sub-section 4 of Section 10A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, effective from 01.04.2001. The question at hand was whether the deduction computation should consider the total turnover of the undertaking or the total turnover of the business of the Company. The Commissioner contended that the turnover of the entire business of the Company should be considered, while the Tribunal set aside this view. The Tribunal's decision was challenged by the Revenue in the present appeal.

2. Arguments Presented:
The learned Counsel for the appellants failed to justify how, post the 2001 amendment, the total turnover of the business carried on by the assessee could have been considered instead of the total turnover of the business carried on by the undertaking, as specified in the amended provision. The Counsel further argued that even if the Assessing Officer's interpretation was correct, the lack of detailed reasons provided by the Officer justified the revision under Section 263 of the Act.

3. Court's Decision:
The Court rejected the appellants' arguments, stating that accepting the return with necessary details did not require the Assessing Officer to provide detailed reasons for the decision. The Court emphasized that the absence of detailed reasons did not render the order erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue's interests, especially when the order was in compliance with the amended provision of Section 10A(4) of the Act. Consequently, the Court concluded that no substantial question of law arose for determination, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

In summary, the High Court of Karnataka upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the specific provisions of the Income Tax Act post-amendment and dismissing the appeal raised by the Revenue.