COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY,

PDF · subscribers
TCA/1234/2015HC Madras20 October 2021Bench: Hon`ble Mrs Justice PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA6 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the substantial questions of law involved in these appeals were no longer res integra. For questions 1 and 2, the Court noted that the Supreme Court, in CIT vs. HCL Technologies Ltd. (2018) 404 ITR 719, had decided the issue in favour of the assessee. For question 3, this Court had previously decided in favour of the assessee in T.C.A.No.733/2013 (CIT vs. M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.). For question 4, this Court had ruled in favour of the assessee in CIT vs. TAC Investments Finance (Madras) Ltd. (2016) 74 Taxmann.Com 38. For question 5, the Court referred to the decision of this Court in CIT vs. M/s. Yokogowa (2017) 77 Taxmann.Com 41 (SC) which was in favour of the assessee. Consequently, as all substantial questions of law had been authoritatively decided in favour of the assessee by the Supreme Court and this Court, the Tax Case Appeals were liable to be dismissed on the same lines.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed Tax Case Appeals (T.C.A.) Nos. 1234 to 1236 of 2015 before the High Court of Madras, challenging orders dated 01.07.2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Madras 'C' Bench. The appeals were admitted on substantial questions of law. The assessee is M/s. Cognizant Technology Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. The appeals concern assessment years not explicitly stated but relate to the period covered by the ITAT orders. The core of the dispute revolves around the calculation of deductions under Sections 10A/10B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and other related issues like foreign currency expenditure, telecommunication charges, interest under Section 234D, and disallowance under Section 14A.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether foreign currency expenditure should be excluded from both export turnover and total turnover for Section 10B purposes. 2. Whether telecommunication charges relatable to software delivery outside India should be excluded from total turnover for Section 10B purposes. 3. Whether interest under Section 234D is leviable from assessment year 2004-2005 onwards when the assessee's regular assessment was completed on 17.03.2005. 4. Whether the Tribunal was right in determining the disallowance under Section 14A at 2% without assigning reasons. 5. Whether current losses of an eligible unit must be set off against profits of other eligible units before allowing deduction under Section 10A/10B. The Revenue contended that the Tribunal's findings on these issues were incorrect. The assessee argued that these issues had already been decided in its favour by the Supreme Court and the High Court in various precedents. The judgment notes that the parties submitted that the substantial questions of law had already been dealt with by higher authorities in favour of the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10A,Section 10B,Section 234D,Section 14A,Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

T.C.A.Nos.1234 to 1236 of 2015 In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 20.10.2021 Coram : The Honourable Mrs.Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana and The Honourable Mr.Justice Krishnan Ramasamy Tax Case (Appeal) Nos.1234 to 1236 of 2015 Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. ...Appellant in all Appeals Vs M/s.Cognizant Technology, Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., 30, Whites Road, Chennai – 600 014. PAN - AAACD3312M ...Respondent in all Appeals Common Prayer APPEALs under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 01.07.2014 made in I.T.A.No.460/Mds/2010, I.T.A.No.751/Mds/2010 and I.T.A.No.864/Mds/2010, on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'C' Bench. For Appellant in all Appeals : Ms.K.G.Usha Ram For Respondent in all Appeals : Ms.N.V.Lakshmi for Mr.N.V.Balaji 1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.Nos.1234 to 1236 of 2015 COMMON JUDGMENT Delivered By Krishnan Ramasamy,J., When the appeals are taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for both sides submitted that the substantial questions of law involved in these Appeals have already been dealt with by the Honourable Supreme Court as well as this Court in favour of the assessee and therefore, the present Appeals may be disposed of on the same lines.

2.

These Appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 filed by the Revenue, was admitted on the following substantial questions of law : 1) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the foreign currency expenditure has to be excluded from both export turnover and total turnover for the purpose of Section 10B of the Act?

2) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the expenditure incurred on telecommunication charges relatable to delivery of software outside India would also not form part of the total turnover for the purpose of Section 10B of the Act? 3) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the interest under Section 234D is leviable from assessment year 2004-2005 onwards, when the assessee's regular assessment was completed only on 17.03.2005? 4) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.Nos.1234 to 1236 of 2015 right in determining the disallowance under Section 14A of exempt income @ 2% without assigning any reason? and 5) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the current losses of the eligible unit must be set off against profits of the other eligible units before allowing the deduction under Section 10A/10B? 2.1 The substantial questions of law Nos.1 and 2) referred above are substantial questions of law Nos.1 and 2) respectively in all these appeals, in respect of which, already the Honourable Supreme Court, in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Central III Vs. HCL Technologies Ltd., reported in (2018) 404 ITR 719, decided the issue in favour of the assessee. 2.2 The substantial question of law No.3) referred above is the substantial question of law No.3) in T.C.A.No.1234 of 2015, and the same has already been decided by this Court in favour of the assessee in T.C.A.No.733/2013, dated 24.08.2021, in re (The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai Vs. M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,) 2.3 The substantial question of law No.4) referred above is the 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.Nos.1234 to 1236 of 2015 substantial question of law No.3 in T.C.A.No.1235 of 2015 and the very same substantial question of law is decided in favour of the assessee by this Court, in CIT Vs. TAC Investments Finance (Madras) Ltd., reported in (2016) 74 Taxmann.Com 38 (Madras). 2.4 The substantial question of law No.5) referred above is the substantial question of law No.4 in T.C.A.No.1235 of 2015 is concerned, and the same is decided in favour of the assessee by the decision of this Court, in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s. Yokogowa reported in (2017) 77 Taxmann.Com 41 (SC). 3. As the substantial questions of law involved herein are no longer res integra, and the same have already been dealt with in favour of the assessee by the Honourable Supreme Court as well as this Court, in the decisions referred to above, these Tax Case Appeals are liable to be dismissed on the same lines. 4. Accordingly, the Tax Case Appeals are dismissed. No costs. 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.Nos.1234 to 1236 of 2015 (P.S.N.J.) (K.R.J.) 20.10.2021 Internet : Yes sd To The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'C' Bench. Pushpa Sathyanarayana,J., & 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.Nos.1234 to 1236 of 2015 Krishnan Ramasamy,J., sd Tax Case (Appeal) Nos.1234 to 1236 of 2015 20.10.2021 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

More judgments on Section 10A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →