Karnataka High Court
M/S Wipro Limited vs The Deputy Commissioner on 15 December, 2020
Bench: Alok Aradhe, H T Narendra Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
I.T.A. NO.227/2020
BETWEEN:
M/S. WIPRO LIMITED
76R & 80P, DODDAKANNELLI
SARJAPUR ROAD
BANGALORE-560035.
.... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. G. GANESH, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI. R.B. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-12(5)
(EARLIER CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3))
14/3, 4TH FLOOR, RASTROTHANA
BHAVAN (OPP.), RBI
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
BANGALORE-560001.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. E.I. SANMATHI, ADVOCATE)
---
THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SEC. 260-A OF INCOME TAX
ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 16.11.2012 PASSED
IN ITA NO.525/BANG/2011, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-
06, PRAYING TO:
2
(i) FORMULATE OR REFORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL
QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE.
(ii) ALLOW THE CROSS OBJECTION AND SET ASIDE THE
ORDER OF THE ITAT DATED 16.11.2012 IN ITA
NO.525/BANG/2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06
(ANNEXURE-C) AND
(iii) PASS SUCH OTHER SUITABLE ORDERS AS THIS
HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT IN THE FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY.
THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Mr.S.Ganesh, learned Senior counsel for Mr.R.B.Krishna, learned counsel for the assessee.
Mr.E.I.Sanmathi, learned counsel for the revenue. This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short) has been filed by the assessee. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment Year 2005-06. The appeal was admitted by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 15.12.2020 on the following substantial questions of law: 3
"(1) Whether the tribunal was right in holding that the miscellaneous income is not eligible for deduction under section 10A?
(2) Whether the tribunal was right in excluding the computer software sales made to STP/SEZ units in India from "export turnover" for the purpose of computing deduction under section 10A/10AA of the Act?
(3) Whether the tribunal was right in excluding the VAT/GST from export turnover and total turnover for the purpose of computing deduction under section 10A/10AA of the Act?
(4) Whether the Tribunal was right in directing that losses of a 10A/10AA unit, which are already set-off against other business income of the assessee, should be again carried forward and set-off against eligible profits of the same unit in a subsequent year?
(5) Whether the tribunal was right in concluding that purchase and sales of monitors constituted a trading activity and thus excludible from the profits of the Pondicherry unit for the purpose of computing deduction under section 80-IB of the Act, when such monitors were part 4 of the computers manufactured and sold by the units?
(6) Whether the tribunal was right in holding that the rental income and reversal of provision no longer required is not eligible for deduction under section 80IB?
(7) Whether the tribunal was right in holding that the miscellaneous income is not eligible for deduction under section 80IC?
(8) Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that credit for income tax paid in another country in relation to income eligible for deduction under Section 10A would not be available under Section 90(1)(a)?
(9) Whether the Tribunal erred in not disposing off the ground pertaining to deductibility of net receipts of the software development centers located outside India, under Section 10A?
Whether the assessee is entitled to such deduction?"
2. When the matter was taken up today, learned Senior counsel for the assessee submits that the substantial questions of law involved in this appeal have already been 5 answered in favour of the assessee by a decision of this Court in the case of the assessee itself in 'WIPRO LTD. Vs. DCIT', (2016) 383 ITR 179 (KAR). The aforesaid proposition however has been disputed by the learned counsel for the revenue.
3. We have considered the substantial questions of law and have carefully perused the aforesaid decision of this Court. From perusal of the aforesaid decision, it is evident that all the substantial questions of law have been answered in favour of the assessee.
4. For the reasons assigned in the aforesaid decision of this Court, the substantial questions of law involved in this appeal are answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.
In the result, the appeal is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE RV