THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 9 MUMBAI vs. MORGAN STANLEY ADVANTAGE SERVICES PVT. LTD.
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.
- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore v. M/S Infosys Ltd, BangaloreBangalore · 2022-11-30
- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore v. M/S Infosys Ltd, BangaloreBangalore · 2022-11-30
- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore v. M/S Infosys Ltd, BangaloreBangalore · 2022-11-30
- M/S Infosys Ltd, Bangalore v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), BangaloreBangalore · 2022-11-30
- M/S Infosys Ltd, Bangalore v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), BangaloreBangalore · 2022-11-30
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT : (Per J.P. Devadhar, J.)
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.
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.
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”.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
- Ahaguru Education Technology Private… vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 1993/CHNY/2026[2023-24]Status: Disposed23 Sept 2026AY 2023-24
- M/S. Aradhyaa Infra & Holdings Pvt. Ltd… vs ITO, Corp. Ward-1(1), ChennaiITA 1793/CHNY/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed3 Sept 2026AY 2020-21
- Tech Mahindra Ltd, Mumbai vs DCIT Cir 2(3), MumbaiITA 7487/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: Disposed24 Aug 2026AY 2008-09
- D.C.I.T. Circle 3(3), Mumbai vs Rbs Business Services P. Ltd., MumbaiITA 4467/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: Disposed14 Aug 2026AY 2007-08
- Rbs Business Services P.Ltd, Mumbai vs DCIT Cir 3(3), MumbaiITA 4306/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: Disposed14 Aug 2026AY 2007-08
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Mishka Steels LLP And Anr. vs. The Superintendent Of Central Goods And Service Tax, Cx, Range-Ii, Behala Div. And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Gujarat Co-Operative Milk Marketing Federation Limited vs. Union Of INDIAGujarat · 14 Oct 2026
- Ramesh K Devadiga vs. Khernagar Nandadeep Co Operative Housing Society LTDBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- Ramesh K Devadiga And Ors vs. Khernagar Nandadeep Co-Operative Housing Society LTD And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- Permender Singh vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026