9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 469X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax [2015 (10) TMI 634 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] which has been affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Central – III vs. HCL Technologies Ltd., [2018 (5) TMI 357 - SUPREME COURT]. - Decided against revenue - I.T.A. No.403 /2017 - - - Dated:- 28-6-2018 - Dr. Vineet Kothari And Mrs. S. Sujatha, J.J. Sri. Sanmathi E I, ADV.- For the Appellant JUDGMENT This Appeal is filed by the Revenue purportedly raising substantial questions of law arising from the Order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, A Bench, Bangalore, in IT [TP] No.120/Bang/2014 dated 11.11.2016, relating to the Assessment Year 2004-05. 2. The proposed substantial questions of law framed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble Supreme Court in the case of HCL Technologies Ltd. (supra), is quoted below for ready reference:- 17. The similar nature of controversy, akin this case, arose before the Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Tata Elxsi Ltd. [2012] 204 Taxman 321/17/taxman.com 100/349 ITR 98. The issue before the Karnataka High Court was whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that while computing relief under Section 10A of the IT Act, the amount of communication expenses should be excluded from the total turnover if the same are reduced from the export turnover? While giving the answer to the issue, the High Court, inter-alia, held that when a particular word is not defined by the legislature and an ordinary meaning is to be attributed to it, the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... own case for A.Y.2010-11 and in that year, the tribunal followed another tribunal order in assessee s own case for A.Y. 2008-09 and confirmed the directions of DRP that foreign exchange gain/loss as operating in nature. Since learned DR of the revenue could not point out any difference in facts, we find no reason to take a contrary view and reject this ground also. 5. The controversy involved herein is no more res integra in view of the decision of this Court in I.T.A. Nos.536/2015 and 537/2015 dated 25.06.2018, wherein it has been observed that unless the finding of the Tribunal is found ex facie perverse, the Appeal u/s. 260-A of the Act, is not maintainable. The relevant portion of the Judgment is quoted below for ready reference: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... parameters will have to be applied, even if such appeals are filed by the Assessees, because, there may be cases where the Tribunal giving its own reasons and findings has found certain comparables to be good comparables to arrive at an Arm s Length Price in the case of the assessees with which the assessees may not be satisfied and have filed such appeals before this Court. Therefore we clarify that mere dissatisfaction with the findings of facts arrived at by the learned Tribunal is not at all a sufficient reason to invoke Section 260-A of the Act before this Court. 58. The appeals filed by the Revenue are therefore dismissed with no order as to costs. 6. In the circumstances, having heard the learned Counsel appearing for bo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
