THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 9 MUMBAI vs. MORGAN STANLEY ADVANTAGE SERVICES PVT. LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITXA/4027/2010HC Bombay30 August 2011Author: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE J.P. DEVADHAR, HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE K.K. TATED6 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court upheld the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Court held that the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) is the 'Competent Authority' under both FEMA and Section 10A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for regulating payments and dealings in foreign exchange. The Court reasoned that Explanation 1 to Section 10A(3) defines the 'Competent Authority' as the RBI or any other authorized body for regulating foreign exchange. Since the RBI, as the competent authority under FEMA, had granted approval for the realization of export proceeds by December 2004, this met the requirements of Section 10A(3). Furthermore, the RBI had neither declined nor rejected the assessee's application for extension. Therefore, the approval granted under FEMA was considered a deemed approval under Section 10A(3), entitling the assessee to the deduction under Section 10A(1). The appeal was disposed of accordingly.

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s. Morgan Stanley Advantage Services Private Limited, is in appeal against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The assessment year in question is 2004-05. The dispute concerns the eligibility for deduction under Section 10A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on export proceeds amounting to Rs. 2.20 crores. These proceeds were realized beyond the six-month period from the end of the assessment year, without specific extension granted by the Competent Authority under Section 10A(3). The assessee had applied to the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) for extension, and the RBI subsequently acknowledged realization of the proceeds through a letter issued under FEMA, though it clarified this was not an approval under other laws.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to the deduction under Section 10A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in respect of export proceeds of Rs. 2.20 crores realized beyond the six-month period from the end of the relevant assessment year, without a specific extension granted by the Competent Authority under Section 10A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that since they had applied for extension and the RBI, the competent authority under FEMA, had taken the remittances on record, the non-issuance of a formal approval letter should not be held against them. They contended that the extension was granted in substance and should be deemed to have been granted. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue contended that a specific extension granted by the Competent Authority under Section 10A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was mandatory for availing the deduction, and the RBI's letter under FEMA did not constitute such an approval.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10A,Section 10A(1),Section 10A(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cited by 11 judgments on BharatTax

See all citing judgments →

Counted from the text of the judgments hosted here. Most recent first.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
1 itxa4027-10 agk            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.4027 OF 2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax – 9,  Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ..Appellant. Versus M/s.Morgan Stanley Advantage Services  Private Limited, Athena Building No.5, Sector – 30, Mindscape, Goregaon (West), Mumbai – 400 090 ..Respondent. Mr.Suresh Kumar for the appellant. Mr.Atul K. Jasani for the respondent. CORAM : J.P. Devadhar &       K.K. Tated, JJ.    DATE     : 30th August, 2011.

JUDGMENT : (Per J.P. Devadhar, J.)

1.

Although several questions are raised by the Revenue in this appeal, the basic question raised in the appeal is :­ “ Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to the deduction under Section 10A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of the sum of Rs.2.20 crores being export proceeds which were realized beyond the period of six months from the end of relevant assessment year and there was no specific extension of time granted by the Competent Authority under Section CNR No : HCBM020246252009 Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 10A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” The appeal is admitted on the above question and by consent taken up for final hearing.

2.

The assessment year involved herein is A.Y. 2004­05. 3. In the present case, admittedly the export proceeds amounting to Rs.2.20 crores has not been received within six months from the end of the relevant assessment year.  As the exports were effected prior to 31st March 2004, the export proceeds ought to have been realized by 30th  September 2004 for availing deduction under Section 10A of the Act unless extension was obtained from the Competent Authority namely the Reserve Bank of India.   In the present case, it is not in dispute that the entire outstanding export proceeds have been realized by the assessee by the first week of December 2004 that is, beyond the period of six months from the end of the relevant   assessment   year.     The   question   is,   in   the   absence   of   specific extension granted by the Competent Authority namely the Reserve Bank of India for realization of the export proceeds as contemplated under Section 10A(3) of the Act whether the assessee could be allowed benefit under Section 10A of the Act.

4.

It   is   not   in   dispute   that   the   assessee   had   in   fact   made   an application   to   the   Reserve   Bank   of   India   on   7th  October   2004   seeking extension of time for realization of the export proceeds.  After realization of Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 the export proceeds in December 2004, reminder letters were again sent by the assessee to the Reserve Bank of India on 24th  January 2007 and 30th March 2007 seeking extension of time for realizing the export proceeds which were already realized in December 2004. However, by a letter dated 25th April 2007, the Reserve Bank of India informed as follows : “RESERVE BANK OF INDIA www.rbi.org.in FED.MRO.CAD(EXP)/13023/28 13.000/2006­07 April 25, 2007 Standard Chartered Bank (Trade Services) 90 M G Road Fort, Mumbai 400 001 Dear Sir, Realixation of Export Proceeds ­ M/s.Morgan Stanley Advantage Services P. Limited (MSAS) Please refer to your letter dated 11th April 2007 on the above subject.  In this connection,   we   confirm   the   realization   of   U 504031/­   through   the following invoices raised by the above company : Invoice Number Date Amount (U ) Date of Realization Amount (U ) GKC/2003­04/3 27­09­2004 130,453 29­09­2004 01­12­2004 11,657.00 118,796.00 GKC/2003­04/5 27­09­2004 385,235 01­12­2004 385,235.00 Yours faithfully, (P.P. Vetkar) Manager NOTE : This communication is issued from the foreign exchange angle under the provisions of FEMA and should not be construed to convey the Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 approval by any other statutory authority or Government under any other laws / regulations.   If further approval or permission is required from any other   regulatory   authority   or   Government   under   the   relevant   laws   / regulations, the applicant should take the approval of the concerned agency before effecting  the transaction.   Further, it should  not be construed  as regularizing or validating any irregularities, contravention or other lapses.  If any, under the provisions of any other laws / regulations”.

5.

It   is   not   in  dispute   that   the   above   approval  granted   by   the Reserve Bank of India relates to realization of the export proceeds which are subject matter of the present appeal.  However, the said approval is issued in the  context of the provisions of  FEMA  and there is no formal approval granted by the Reserve Bank of India under Section 10A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, even though an application has been made by the assessee in that behalf.

6.

The   Income   Tax   Appellate   Tribunal   has   held   that   once   the assessee has applied for extension and has completed all the formalities and in response the Reserve Bank of India has taken the remittances on record, then, non­issuance of a formal letter of approval by the Reserve Bank of India cannot be held against the assessee for none of its fault.   The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has further held that in the facts of the present case, it must be held that the extension has been granted in substance and, therefore, the benefit of Section 10A has to be allowed to the assessee on the ground that the extension is deemed to have been granted.

7.

In our opinion, no fault can be found with the decision of the Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.  In the present case, the note appended to the Reserve Bank of India’s letter dated 25th April 2007 no doubt records that the approval granted by the Reserve Bank of India is under FEMA and the said approval should not be construed as approval by any other Authority or Government under any other laws / regulations.  The question is, whether the extension of time for realisation of the export proceeds by the Competent Authority   under   FEMA   can   be   said   to   be   the   approval   granted   by   the Competent Authority under Section 10A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8. Explanation   1   to   Section   10A(3)   clearly   provides   that   the expression ‘Competent Authority’  in Section 10A means the Reserve Bank of India or such other Authority as is authorized under any law for the time being in force for regulating payments and dealings in foreign exchange. Admittedly, Reserve Bank of India is the competent authority under FEMA which regulates the payments and dealings in foreign exchange.  Thus, what Section 10A(3) of the Act provides is that the benefits under Section 10A(1) would   be   available   if   the   export   proceeds   are   realised   within   the   time prescribed by the competent authority under FEMA.   In the present case, the competent authority under FEMA namely the RBI, has granted approval in respect of the export proceeds realised by the assessee till December, 2004. Therefore,   the   approval   granted   by   RBI   under   FEMA   would   meet   the requirements of Section 10A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In other words, once the competent authority under FEMA which regulates the payments and Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 dealings in foreign exchange has approved realization of the export proceeds by the assessee till December, 2004, then it would meet the requirements of Section   10A(3)   and  consequently   the   assessee   would   be   entitled   to   the benefits under Section 10A(1) of the Act.

9.

Moreover, in the present case, the Reserve Bank of India which is the Competent Authority under FEMA as also under Section 10A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has neither declined nor rejected the application made by the assessee seeking extension of time under Section 10A of the Act. Therefore, the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in holding that the approval granted under FEMA constitutes a deemed approval granted by the Reserve Bank of India under Section 10A(3) of the Act cannot be faulted.

10.

In the result, we answer the question raised in the appeal by holding that the RBI being the competent authority under FEMA as also under 10A(3) of the Act, in the facts of the present case, the ITAT was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to the deduction under Section 10A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of the export proceeds realised till December, 2004 for which approval has been granted by the competent authority under FEMA, namely the RBI.  The appeal is accordingly disposed off with no order as to costs. (K.K. Tated, J.) (J.P. Devadhar, J.) Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

More judgments on Section 10A

All 2,147 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →