THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T vs. M/S AVAION TECHNOLOGIES P LTD

PDF · subscribers
TCA/373/2015HC Madras27 August 2019Bench: Hon`ble Mr Justice T. S. SIVAGNANAM4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue on account of low tax effect, as submitted by the Revenue's counsel. The Court noted that the tax effect in the respective cases was less than the threshold limit stipulated in CBDT Circular No.17/2019. Consequently, the substantial questions of law framed were left open. The Revenue was granted liberty to mention the case for restoration if the tax effect was found to be above the threshold limit, to be heard and decided on merits. No costs were awarded. The ITAT's order, which directed recomputation of income for Section 10A and 10B deductions, was not adjudicated on merits by the High Court.

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai (Revenue) filed two appeals (TCA.Nos.373 and 376 of 2015) before the High Court of Judicature at Madras against the common order dated 31.10.2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chennai 'A' Bench. These appeals pertained to assessment years 2005-06 and 2008-09 and challenged the ITAT's direction to recompute the income of M/s. Avalon Technologies P. Ltd. (assessee) for deduction under Section 10A and Section 10B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeals were admitted on substantial questions of law. The Revenue later submitted that it was not pursuing these appeals due to low tax effect, citing CBDT Circular No.17/2019 which increased the monetary limit for appeals to Rs.1 Crore, and the tax effect in these cases was below that threshold.

What were the issues?

The High Court was to decide the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the ITAT was correct in directing the Assessing Officer to recompute income by excluding freight and insurance expenses from both export turnover and total turnover for computing deduction under Section 10A, in light of the decision in Sak Soft. 2. Whether the ITAT's finding was flawed, given that Explanation 2(iv) to Section 10A defines "Export Turnover" to exclude freight and telecommunication charges attributable to delivery outside India or expenses in foreign exchange. 3. Whether the ITAT was correct in holding that for Section 10B formula, freight and telecommunication charges, to be excluded from export turnover as per Explanation 2(iii) of Section 10B, should also be excluded from total turnover, even though the statute only provides for exclusion from export turnover. Assessee's arguments: Not recorded. Revenue's arguments: The Revenue submitted that the appeals were not being pursued due to low tax effect, citing CBDT Circular No.17/2019, as the tax effect was below the enhanced monetary limit of Rs.1 Crore for High Court appeals.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 10A,Section 10B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

TCA.Nos.373 and 376 of 2015 In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 27.08.2019 Coram : The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM and The Honourable Mrs.Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal Nos.373 and 376 of 2015 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. ...Appellant Vs M/s.Avalon Technologies P. Ltd., TPI Block, B-7, First Main Road, MEPZ-SEZ, Tambaram, Chennai - 600 045. PAN: AACCA4147K ...Respondent APPEALS under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the common order dated 31.10.2014 made in ITA.Nos.2267 and 2270/Mds/2013 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'A' Bench for the assessment years 2005-06 and 2008-09. For Appellant: Mr.T.Ravikumar, SSC assisted by Ms.R.Hemalatha, SSC For Respondent: No appearance COMMON JUDGMENT (Judgment was delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam,J) We have heard Mr.T.Ravikumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel assisted by Ms.R.Hemalatha, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant – Revenue. 1/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.Nos.373 and 376 of 2015 2.These appeals, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are directed against the common order dated 31.10.2014 made in ITA.Nos.2267 and 2270/Mds/2013 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'A' Bench for the assessment years 2005-06 and 2008-09. 3.The appeals were admitted on 22.07.2015 on the following substantial questions of law : “i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in directing the Assessing Officer to recompute the income in the light of the decision of the Special Bench in the case of Sak Soft by excluding the freight and insurance expenses both from the Export turnover and also from the total turnover while computing deduction under Section 10A of the Income Tax Act? ii) Is not the finding of the Tribunal bad, especially when Explanation 2(iv) to Section 10A defines the word "Export Turnover" whereby it had been clearly stated that it would not include freight, telecommunication charges attributable to the delivery of the articles or things or computer software outside India or expenses if any incurred in foreign exchange while computing deduction under Section 10A of the Income Tax Act? iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that for the purpose of applying the formula under Section 10B, the freight, telecommunications charges, which are required to be excluded from export turnover as defined under Explanation 2(iii) of Section 10B of the Act should also be excluded from total turnover even though the statute has provided for such exclusion only from the export turnover?"

2/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.Nos.373 and 376 of 2015 4.The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant submits that the above appeals are not pursued by the Revenue on account of the low tax effect in terms of Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.8.2019 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. By the said Circular, the monetary limit for filing or pursuing an appeal before the High Court has been increased to Rs.1 Crore. It is further submitted that the tax effect in the respective cases is less than the threshold limit. 5. In the light of the said submissions, the above tax case appeals are dismissed on account of the low tax effect. The substantial questions of law framed are left open. In the event the tax effect in the respective cases is above the threshold limit fixed in the said circular, liberty is granted to the Revenue to make a mention to this Court to restore the appeals to be heard and decided on merits. No costs. (T.S.S.J.) (V.B.S.J.) 27.08.2019 cse Speaking (or) Non Speaking Order Index : Yes (or) No 3/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.Nos.373 and 376 of 2015 T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J. AND V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN,J. cse To 1.M/s.Avalon Technologies P. Ltd., TPI Block, B-7, First Main Road, MEPZ-SEZ, Tambaram, Chennai - 600 045. 2.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'A' Bench. TCA.Nos.373 and 376 of 2015 27.08.2019 4/4 http://www.judis.nic.in

More judgments on Section 10A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →