Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

Newgen Knowledge Works P Ltd vs The Assistant Commissioner Of Income ... on 24 June, 2025

                                                                                       T.C.A.Nos.486 to 488 of 2012

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                   DATED: 24-06-2025

                                                            CORAM

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.K.R.SHRIRAM, CHIEF JUSTICE
                                                               AND
                                   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
                                          TCA Nos.486, 487 and 488 of 2012
                     Newgen Knowledge Works P Ltd,
                     No.268, Royapettah High Road,
                     Chennai- 600 014
                     (formerly Newgen Imaging Systems
                     Pvt. Ltd.)
                                                                                 Appellant in all the appeals
                                                       Vs
                     The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
                     Company Circle IV(4),
                     “Aayakar Bhavan”,
                     Chennai – 600 034.                 Respondent in all the appeals

                     Prayer in all the appeals: Appeals filed under Section 260A of the Income
                     Tax Act, 1961 against the “A” Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
                     (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') at Chennai, in ITA
                     No.1871/Mds/2011, ITA No.1872/Mds/2011 and ITA No.1873/Mds/2011
                     for the assessment years 2005 – 06, 2006-07 and 2007 – 08.

                                   For Appellant
                                   in all the appeals : Mr.M.V.Swaroop

                                   For Respondent
                                   in all the appeals : Ms.V.Pushpa
                                                        Senior Standing Counsel



                     __________
                     Page 1 of 5




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis              ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2025 05:09:26 pm )
                                                                                               T.C.A.Nos.486 to 488 of 2012



                                                      COMMON JUDGMENT

(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble The Chief Justice) The following five substantial questions of law were framed on 07.01.2023:

“1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in reducing the tax holiday claim made by the appellant under Section 10B of the Act?
2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in reducing the amount of expenditure incurred in foreign exchange from export turnover, while computing tax holiday claim under Section 10B of the Act, when in fact that the appellant does not provide any technical services to its clients outside India?
3. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the technical service and marketing service are one and the same whereas the definition under the Explanation 2 to Section 9(1) (vii) of the Act includes only “managerial, technical and consultancy” services?
4. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in reducing the amount of expenditure incurred in foreign exchange from export turnover, while computing tax holiday claim under Section 10B of the Act, on the finding that Ms. Aneeta Madhavan is providing technical services to the appellant?
5. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in reducing the amount of expenditure incurred in foreign exchange from export turnover, while computing tax holiday claim under Section 10B of the Act, when in fact that the appellant does not recover such expenditure in the invoices raised on its clients outside India?”
2. Shri.M.V.Swaroop, appearing for appellant, states that the issue __________ Page 2 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2025 05:09:26 pm ) T.C.A.Nos.486 to 488 of 2012 raised in the first two questions are squarely covered by two judgments viz., by judgment of this Court in The Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Chennai v. M/s.Zylog Systems Limited [TCA Nos.312 and 381 of 2011 dated 20.02.2020] and by a judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore v. Mphasis Ltd.1 . Both in favour of assessee.
3. Ms.Pushpa, in fairness, as an officer of the Court, agrees.

Therefore, the first two questions are answered in favour of assessee.

4. In view of the above, Shri.M.V.Swaroop states that he does not press substantial questions of law 3, 4 and 5. Statement accepted.

5. Tax Case Appeals stand disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.

(K.R.SHRIRAM, C.J.) (SUNDER MOHAN J.) 24-06-2025 Index: Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No 1 [2016] 74 taxmann.com 274 (Karnataka) __________ Page 3 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2025 05:09:26 pm ) T.C.A.Nos.486 to 488 of 2012 ars/dk To The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Company Circle IV(4), “Aayakar Bhavan”, Chennai – 600 034.

__________ Page 4 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2025 05:09:26 pm ) T.C.A.Nos.486 to 488 of 2012 THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND SUNDER MOHAN, J.

ars/dk TCA Nos.486, 487 and 488 of 2012 24-06-2025 __________ Page 5 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2025 05:09:26 pm )