2020 (4) TMI 626

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... One of the issue that arose in the aforesaid appeal was with regard to claim of assessee for deduction u/s. 10A/10AA of the Act of income derived by way of royalty. The Tribunal had rejected the claim of assessee. The assessee filed MP No.38/Bang/2019 against the order of Tribunal and this aspect was discussed by the Tribunal in paras 9 & 10 of its order dated 28.6.2019 as follows:- "9. The next aspect pointed out in this MP is with regard to the Tribunal's order in excluding royalty income from the business income for the purpose of allowing deduction u/s. 10A of the Act. It has been pointed out that the Tribunal in its order in para 15.5 & 15.6 had come to the conclusion that royalty income had no direct nexus with indust....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ty income forming part of business income. The revenue authorities proceeded on the basis that this was not part of export income and therefore excluded the same from the business income. There is, therefore, a mistake apparent on the face of record calling for interference u/s. 254(2) of the Act. We therefore recall the order of Tribunal for the limited purpose of adjudicating ground No.14 of the grounds of appeal of the assessee." 3. In this MP, the revenue has prayed that this order of Tribunal should be recalled for the following reasons:- "4. This decision of the Tribunal recalling its original order is not acceptable. As discussed in the preceding paras, the AO in his assessment order has clearly brought out this fact that....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... aspect was discussed by the AO/DRP, but he could not point out from the order of AO/DRP about the basis of disallowance of deduction on royalty income by the revenue authorities. 7. Be that as it may, the ld. counsel for the assessee has brought to our notice a decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka which the High Court took the view that there cannot be a miscellaneous petition filed u/s. 254(2) of the Act against an order passed in a Miscellaneous Petition u/s. 254(2) of the Act. A copy of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Pr. CIT v. Smt. Alpana Bharatiya in ITA No.847 of 2018 dated 25.3.2019 was filed before us. The following were the relevant observations of the Hon'ble High Court:- ....