9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (8) TMI 71 - HC - Income TaxVarious expenses disallowed Binding precedent - Held that - The expenses incurred in foreign currency on telecommunication charges and providing technical services outside India should not be excluded from the total turnover for the purpose of computation of deduction u/s 10A Relying upon Commissioner of Income Tax v/s Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd 2010 (6) TMI 65 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT - merely because the SLP against the Division Bench judgment in Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd is pending before the SC, it will not permit to discard and brush aside the binding precedent No substantial question of law arises for consideration Decided against Revenue.
Issues:
Challenge to order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding disallowances in assessment for the year 2004-2005. Analysis: The High Court was presented with an appeal challenging the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal related to the assessment for the year 2004-2005. The initial return of income was filed, which led to various disallowances by the Assessing Officer. Subsequently, an appeal was made to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), resulting in partial allowance. A further appeal was filed before the Tribunal, which was dismissed by the impugned order. The High Court examined the issue of excluding expenses incurred in foreign currency on telecommunication charges and providing technical services outside India from the total turnover for the purpose of deduction under Section 10A. The Court referenced a previous judgment in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v/s Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd, which favored the assessee. The Court noted that the Tribunal followed its own Special Bench decision, which was also mentioned in the Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd case. Despite a pending Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, the High Court emphasized the importance of adhering to binding precedents. Consequently, the Court concluded that the present appeal did not raise any substantial question of law and dismissed it accordingly.
|
