B.S.E.S.LTD. vs. THE C.I.T.B.C-VI.

PDF · subscribers
ITR/76/1998HC Bombay13 October 2016Author: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M.S. SANKLECHA, HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE S.C. GUPTE11 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the assessee was not entitled to claim weighted deduction under Section 35B. The Court reasoned that the assessee's role was that of a sub-contractor to BHEL, an Indian company. The main contract for the electrification scheme was between BHEL and ECSA (a foreign entity). The sub-contract between BHEL and the assessee stipulated that the assessee owed its obligations to BHEL, not directly to ECSA. BHEL was responsible for the overall execution of the main contract and was the party providing technical know-how to ECSA. The assessee's work, however specialized, was performed for BHEL. Therefore, the assessee did not qualify as an exporter of goods or technical know-how to a person outside India, which is a prerequisite for claiming deduction under Section 35B, particularly with the introduction of sub-section (1A) applicable from April 1, 1978. The reliance on Stepwell Industries Ltd. was deemed inapplicable as that case did not consider sub-section (1A). The question of law was answered in favour of the Revenue.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Bombay Suburban Electric Supply Ltd., claimed weighted deduction under Section 35B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1979-80, on expenditure of Rs. 5,36,77,345. The assessee had entered into a sub-contract with Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. (BHEL) to execute a portion of a turn-key project for the Electricity Corporation of Saudi Arabia (ECSA). The assessee contended that this work involved providing technical know-how and services to a person outside India. The Assessing Officer rejected the claim, holding that the assessee was merely a sub-contractor to BHEL and not an exporter. This view was upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The matter was referred to the High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was not entitled to claim weighted deduction under Section 35B of the Act? (Question of law) Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that it was eligible for the weighted deduction under Section 35B as it had incurred expenditure in executing a sub-contract that involved providing technical know-how and services to a person outside India. They relied on observations from the Supreme Court case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Stepwell Industries Ltd., suggesting that a direct nexus with the foreign party might not be necessary. Revenue's contention: The Revenue contended that the assessee acted solely as a sub-contractor to BHEL, an Indian party, and therefore did not provide technical know-how or services directly to a person outside India. They argued that BHEL was the exporter in this scenario. The Revenue also initially raised a point regarding whether the services rendered constituted 'technical know-how' under Section 80MM, but the High Court clarified that this was not an issue to be decided based on the statement of case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 35B,Section 256(1),Section 80MM,Section 80B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Chittewan 1/11 1.ITR76-98.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

INCOME TAX REFERENCE NO.76 OF 1998

Bombay Suburban Electric Supply Ltd. ... Applicant Versus Commissioner of Income Tax Bombay City VI. … Respondent ….. Mr. Murlidhar a/w Mr. Rajesh Poojari i/b Mulla & Mulla & Craigie Blunt & Caroe, for the Applicant. Mr. A.R. Malhotra a/w N.A. Kazi for the Respondent. …..

CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA & S.C.GUPTE, JJ DATE    :  13 OCTOBER 2016 JUDGEMENT : ( Per S.C. Gupte, J.)

. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”), the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (“Tribunal”) has referred the following question of law for our consideration :­ “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case in   law,   the   Tribunal   was   justified   in   holding   that   the assessee   was   not   entitled   to   claim   weighted   deduction under Section 35B of the Act ?” 2 The Assessment Year is 1979­80. 3 For   the   subject   assessment   year,   the   assessee   claimed   weighted CNR No : HCBM020174851993 Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 04:00:57

Chittewan 2/11 1.ITR76-98.doc deduction on expenditure amounting to Rs.5,36,77,345/­ incurred by it on items enumerated in Section 35B of the Act.   Section 35B provides for export markets development allowance, allowing weighted  deduction in a sum equal to one and one­third times the amount of expenditure incurred for various export related activities enumerated in clause (1)(a) of Section 35B during the previous year by a domestic company. 4 The case of the assessee is that by an agreement dated 18 June 1977, entered into between Electricity Corporation of Saudi Arabia (“ECSA”)  and Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. (“BHEL”), the latter agreed to provide, deliver at site, erect, set up, work, test, hand over and maintain a turn key project for an electrification scheme known as Wadi Jizan Electrification Scheme (“Main agreement”).   BHEL, in turn, entered into agreement dated 24 August 1977 with the assessee, sub­contracting a portion of the work to the latter   (“sub­contract”).   The   sub­contract   related   to   laying   out   of transmission   lines,   overhead   lines   and   distribution   lines.     Under   this agreement,   the   assessee  agreed  to   discharge   and  fulfill  all  the   duties, obligations and covenants of BHEL under the main agreement entered into between BHEL and ECSA insofar as it related to the work under the sub­ contract.     The   assessee   claimed   to   have   incurred   expenditure,   whilst executing   this   sub­contract,     in   respect   of  its   business   of  provision   of technical know­how or rendering services in connection with provision of technical know­how to a person outside India and accordingly become eligible for weighted deduction under Section 35B(1)(a) of the Act. 5 The Assessing Officer rejected the assessee's claim   mainly on the ground that the assesee acted only as a sub­contractor of BHEL and thus Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 04:00:57

Chittewan 3/11 1.ITR76-98.doc was not entitled to any deduction under Section 35B(1)(a).  This order was confirmed in   appeal by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and also by the Tribunal in further appeal. 6 At   the   outset,   Mr.   Malhotra,   learned   Counsel   appearing   for   the Revenue sought to contend that the work executed by the assessee  does not amount to provision of technical know­how within the meaning of sub­ section (2) of Section 80MM of the Act. It is true, the question of law framed by the Tribunal for our opinion appears on the face of it to be quite open ended.  It requires us to consider whether or not, on the facts and in the circumstances, the assessee is entitled in law to the deduction, provided in Section 35B.  We are, however, of the view that the question, namely, whether or not the nature of services rendered by the assessee amounts to provision of technical know­how so as to claim the deduction,  is not open technical know­how under sub­section (2) of Section 80MM of the Act. Infact both the assessee and revenue appear to have proceeded on the 1 (1950) 18 CCH 0116 ISCC Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 04:00:57

Chittewan 4/11 1.ITR76-98.doc footing that the nature of services rendered by the assessee amounts to provision of technical know­how.  The only question, which forms part of the statement of case framed by the Tribunal, is whether or not these services are rendered to a person outside India by the assessee within a meaning of sub­section (1A)  of Section 35B.  We will accordingly restrict our enquiry to the above question. 7 Section   35B   of   the   Act,   as   it   existed   at   the   relevant   time   (i.e. Assessment Year­1979­80), is in the following terms. 35B. (1)(a) Where an assessee, being a domestic company or a person (other than a company) who is resident in India, has incurred after the 29th day of February, 1968, whether directly or in association with any other person, any expenditure (not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee) referred to in clause (b), he shall, subject to the provisions of this section, be allowed a deduction of a sum equal to one and one­third times the amount of such expenditure incurred during the previous year : Provided that in respect of the expenditure incurred after 28th day of February 1973 [but before the 1st day of April, 1978], by a domestic company,   being   a   company   in   which   the   public   are   substantially interested, the provisions of this clause shall have effect as if for the words “one and one­third times”, the words “one and one­half times” had been substituted] (b) The expenditure referred to in clause (a) is that incurred wholly and exclusively on­ (i) advertisement   of   publicity   outside   India   in   respect   of   the goods, services or facilities which the assessee deals in or provides in the course of his business [where such expenditure is incurred before the 1st day of April 1978]; (ii) obtaining   information   regarding   markets   outside   India   for such goods, services or facilities ; (iii) distribution, supply or provision outside India of such goods, Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 04:00:57

Chittewan 5/11 1.ITR76-98.doc services   or   facilities,   not   being   expenditure   incurred   in   India   in connection   therewith   or   expenditure   (wherever   incurred)   on   the carriage of such goods to their destination outside India or on the insurance of such goods while in transit [where such expenditure is incurred before the 1st day of April, 1978]; (iv) maintenance outside India or a branch, office or agency for the promotion of the sale outside India of such goods, services or facilities; (v) preparation   and   submission   of   tenders   for   the   supply   or provision   outside   India   of   such   goods,   services   or   facilities,   and activities incidental thereto; (vi) furnishing   to   a   person   outside   India   samples   or   technical information for the promotion of the sale of such goods, services or facilities; (vii) travelling outside India for the promotion of the sale outside India of such goods, services or facilities, including travelling outward from, and return to, India; (viii) performance of services outside India in connection with, or incidental to, the execution of any contract for the supply outside India of such goods, services or facilities; (ix) such other activities for the promotion of the sale outside India of such goods, services or facilities as may be prescribed. Explanation [1] : In this section, “domestic company” shall have the meaning assigned to it in clause (2) of section 80B. Explanation  2 : For the purposes of sub­clause (iii) and sub­clause (viii) of clause (b), expenditure incurred by an assessee engaged in the business of­ (i) operation of any ship or other vessel, aircraft or vehicle, or (ii) carriage   of,   or   making   arrangements   for   carriage   of, passengers, live­stock, mail or goods, on or in relation to such operation or carriage or arrangements for carriage (including in each case expenditure incurred on the provision of any benefit, amenity or facility to the crew, passengers or livestock) shall not be regarded as expenditure incurred by the assessee on the Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 04:00:57

Chittewan 6/11 1.ITR76-98.doc supply outside India of services or facilities.] [(1A)   Notwithstanding   anything   contained   in   sub­section   (1),   no deduction   under   this   section   shall   be   allowed   in   relation   to   any expenditure incurred after 31st day of March, 1978, unless the following conditions are fulfilled, namely :­ (a) the assessee referred to in that sub­section is engaged in­ (i) the   business   of   export   of   goods   and   is   either   a   small­scale exporter or a holder of an Export House Certificate; or (ii) the   business   of   provision   of   technical   know­how,   or   the rendering of services in connection with the provision of technical know­ how, to persons outside India; and (b) the expenditure referred to in that sub­section is incurred by the assessee wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business referred to in sub­clause (I) or, as the case may be, sub­clause (ii) of clause (a). Explanation : For the purpose of this sub­section,­ (a) “small­scale   exporter”   means   a   person   who   exports   goods manufactured or produced in any small­scale industrial undertaking or undertakings owned by him : Provided that such perso does not own any industrial undertaking which is not a small­scale industrial undertaking; (b) “Export   House   Certificate”   means   a   valid   Export   House Certificate   issued   by   the   Chief   Controller   of   Imports   and   Exports, Government of India ; (c) “provision of technical know­how” has the meaning assigned to it in sub­section (2) of Section 80MM; (d) “small­scale industrial undertaking” has the meaning assigned to it in sub­section (2) of the Explanation below sub­section (2) of Section 32A.] (2) Where a deduction under this section is claimed and allowed for any assessment year in respect of any expenditure referred to in sub­section (1), deduction shall not be allowed in respect of such expenditure under any other provision of this Act for the same or any other assessment year.

Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 04:00:57

Chittewan 7/11 1.ITR76-98.doc 8 Clause (a) of Sub­section (1) of Section 35B allows the assessee deduction provided therein in respect of expenditure referred to in clause (b) incurred by him,   whether directly or in association with any other person.  All nine items forming  part of clause (b) make it clear that the expenditure referred to therein is for work done or information gathered or goods, services or facilities distributed, supplied,   provided, maintained, etc.   outside India.   There is no reference in clauses (a) or (b) of Sub­ section   (1)   of   the   assessee   himself   being   engaged   in   the   business   of exporter of goods or services or incurring the expenditure in connection with such business.  Sub­section (1A),  which is introduced by Finance Act, 1978, with effect from 1­4­1978,  however, introduces a further condition for claiming deduction under sub­section (1)(a).  The condition required to be fulfilled under sub­section (1A) for claiming deduction under clause (a) of Sub­section (1) is that the assessee himself must be engaged in the business of export of goods and is either a small­scale exporter or a holder of an Export House Certificate  or in the business of provision of technical know­how or rendering of services in connection   therewith to persons outside India.  It also requires further that the expenditure referred to in clause (b)   of    sub­section  (1)  is  incurred  by  the  assessee  wholly  and exclusively   for   the   purpose   of   such   business   of   export   of   goods   or technical know­how, as the case may be. 9 A bare reading of the provision makes it clear that whatever  may have been the position earlier, for the assessment year 1979­80, i.e. after introduction   of   sub­section   (1A),   the   assessee   for   claiming   deduction under Section 35B has to be an exporter of goods or technical know­how and the expenditure should have been incurred by him in connection with Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 04:00:57

Chittewan 8/11 1.ITR76-98.doc that business. 10 If one has regard to the agreement between the assessee and BHEL, which is described as a “back to back agreement”, the main contract  for supply, delivery and provision to a person outside India, namely, in this case, ECSA, was entered into by BHEL and that it was at the instance of BHEL that the assessee had submitted its offer with regard to the provision of services in terms of the main contract.   This was essentially a sub­ contract and the assessee was a sub­contractor, who was responsible to, and supplied goods and services to, BHEL, an Indian party.  The back to back agreement shows that the assessee was to furnish   programme for submission of design calculations, layout drawings and documents forming part of the contract for approval of BHEL, who had the right to modify the same.   It was only after the final approval of BHEL that the drawings, documents and calculations were to be submitted at site.   The contract price,  which was stated to be payable in Saudi Riyals, was to be paid by BHEL to the assessee.   The contract also makes it clear that the export incentives in respect of the execution of the contract would belong to BHEL, and, wherever applicable, would be passed on to the assessee by BHEL.  On a bare reading of this contract, it clearly appears to be a sub­ contract where obligations are owed by the assessee to the main contractor, namely, BHEL.   The assessee has no obligations to the person outside in India, namely, in this case, ECSA. 11 In other words, what emerges from the record is that the exporter of know­how in the present case was BHEL, who provided know­how to a person outside India, namely,  ECSA. It is BHEL, who,  as such exporter, Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 04:00:57

Chittewan 9/11 1.ITR76-98.doc incurred expenses for the purpose of provision of technical know­how to a person outside India.  The assessee as a sub­contractor of BHEL, did not provide any technical know­how to a person outside India and   was not entitled   to   claim   any   deduction   under   Section   35B,   as     it   was   then applicable.       All   authorities   below,   namely,   the   Assessing   Officer,   the Commissioner   of   Income   Tax   (Appeals)   and   the   Tribunal,   came   to   a concurrent conclusion that the assessee was not an exporter of any goods or know­how and was merely a sub­contractor of BHEL,  who  provided these services to BHEL and not to the person outside India, namely, ECSA. As   held   by   the   Tribunal   in   its   order   dated   18   November   1991,   the agreement was entered into between BHEL and the foreign party and it was the duty of former to provide  whatever services were contracted to the latter.  As to how these services were to be provided to the foreign party was in the exclusive domain of BHEL.   It alone was   responsible to the foreign party for the provision of these services.   In the premises, the Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that whatever was provided to the foreign party was clearly by BHEL and not the assessee concerned. The   Tribunal   rightly   concluded   that   what   was   done   by   the   assessee­ company, however technically  specialized job it may be, it was done only for BHEL as a sub­contractor and not for a person outside India and that, the assessee's goods were sold by State Trading Corporation of India to 2 (1997) 228 ITR 171 Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 04:00:57

Chittewan 10/11 1.ITR76-98.doc various parties outside India.   The assessee claimed weighted deduction under Section 35B(1)(b)(i) and (iv).  The Supreme Court did not allow the claim of the assessee in the facts of the case, on the ground that the assessee had failed to prove that the assessee had incurred any expenditure wholly and exclusively for the purposes set out in Section 35B(1)(b).  It did, in the course of its reasoning, however, observe that had the State Trading Corporation incurred expenditure for advertisement or publicity outside India  for and on behalf of the assessee and in respect of the goods the assessee deals in or provides in the course of his business, the assessee could   have   availed   of   the   deduction.     Mr.   Murlidhar   relied   on   these observations to contend that there is no need for a nexus between the assessee and the foreign party to whom the supply is made.  As we have noted above, whatever may have been the position under Section 35B as it existed prior to 1­4­1978,   with effect from that day and till sub­section (1A) remained on the statute book, the requirement of law to claim this deduction was that the assessee must be an exporter of goods or provider of technical know­how to a person outside India and the expenditure must be incurred for such export of goods or provision of know­how to a person outside India.   The Supreme Court,  in case of   Stepwell Industries Ltd (supra),  had no occasion to deal with the provisions of Sub­section (1A) introduced in the Act.  The judgment in the case of Stepwell Industries Ltd,   thus, offers  no assistance to the assessee in the present case.  The assessee's case clearly falls within the Assessment Year 1979­80 and it is covered by the provisions of sub­section (1A). 13 In the premises, there is no infirmity in the orders of the authorities below. Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 04:00:57

Chittewan 11/11 1.ITR76-98.doc 14 The   question   of   law   as   framed   by   the   Tribunal   is,   accordingly, answered in the affirmative,  that is to say,  in favour of the Revenue and against the Assessee.  The Reference is disposed of  in the above terms.

(S.C. GUPTE, J.) (M.S. SANKLECHA, J.) Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 04:00:57 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →