WIPRO LIMITED vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
ITA/87/2023HC KarnatakaKAHC01009685202309 January 2024Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA5 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the appeal. The Court noted that the ITAT had not considered the specific ground raised by the assessee, and a subsequent miscellaneous petition for reconsideration was also rejected. The assessee's counsel presented arguments based on a Bombay High Court judgment in Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, City-VI, Mumbai, which was followed by the ITAT in the assessee's own case for subsequent assessment years. The Standing Counsel for the Revenue did not dispute these submissions and agreed to a direction for reconsideration by the ITAT. Consequently, the High Court set aside the ITAT's order dated 05.10.2020 in IT(TP)A No.99/Bang/2014 and remitted the matter back to the ITAT for reconsideration in accordance with the law. All contentions of both parties were kept open.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Wipro Limited, is challenging an order dated 05.10.2020 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), 'C' Bench, Bengaluru, for Assessment Year 2009-10. The assessee, a resident of India, paid taxes in foreign countries on income earned abroad. The assessee claimed these foreign taxes as a deduction from its business income under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, arguing that this income was not taxable in India and the expenditure was wholly and exclusively for business purposes. The Assessing Officer (AO) and the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) rejected this claim. The ITAT had not considered this specific ground, and a subsequent miscellaneous petition filed by the assessee for reconsideration was also rejected, leading to the present appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and on the grounds raised, the taxes paid by the Appellant to foreign Governments and authorities, in respect of which credit has not been given under Sections 90 and 91 of the Act read with the Applicable DTAAs, should be allowed as a deduction from the business income of the Appellant given that it is unquestionable expenditure which has been incurred by the Appellant wholly and exclusively for the purposes of its business and is, therefore, eligible for deduction under Section 37 of the Act? Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the income was taxable in foreign countries, and the tax was duly paid. The AO, DRP, and ITAT had not properly considered this aspect. The assessee relied on the Bombay High Court's decision in Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, City-VI, Mumbai, which granted similar relief and was accepted by the Department. The assessee also noted that the ITAT had followed this precedent in its own case for subsequent assessment years (2015-16 to 2017-18). Therefore, the assessee sought reconsideration of the matter by the ITAT. Revenue's Contentions: The Standing Counsel for the Revenue did not dispute the assessee's submission and agreed that the ITAT could be directed to reconsider the matter, with all questions being kept open for the revenue to urge.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 37,Section 90,Section 91

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 - NC: 2024:KHC:1244-DB ITA No. 87 of 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 87 OF 2023

BETWEEN:

WIPRO LIMITED 76P AND 80P, DODDAKANNELLI SARJAPUR ROAD BENGALURU-560 035. REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER - FINANCE MR. VENKATRAMAN .E PAN: AAACW0387R …APPELLANT

(BY SHRI. SANDEEP HUILGOL, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE 12, BANGALORE RASHTOTHANA BHAVAN (OPP. RBI), NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU-560 001.

2.

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BANGALORE BMTC BUILDING, 6TH BLOCK KORAMANGALA BENGALURU-560 095. …RESPONDENTS

(BY SHRI. E.I. SANMATHI, STANDING COUNSEL)

Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka

- 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:1244-DB ITA No. 87 of 2023

THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW STATED THEREIN AND ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE, TO THE EXTENT QUESTIONED HEREIN, THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 05/10/2020 PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘C’ BENCH, BANGALORE, IN IT(TP)A NO.99/BANG/2014, ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-2010 VIDE (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.

THIS ITA, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, P.S.DINESH KUMAR, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

This appeal by the assessee challenging the order dated 05.10.2020 in IT (TP)A No.99/Bang/2014 for the assessment year 2009-10 passed by the ITAT, ‘C’ Bench, Bengaluru, has been admitted to consider the following question of law:

“Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and on the grounds raised, the taxes paid by the Appellant to foreign Governments and authorities, in respect of which credit has not been given under Sections 90 and 91 of the Act read with the Applicable DTAAs, should be allowed as a deduction from the business income of the Appellant given that is unquestionable expenditure which has been incurred by the Appellant wholly and exclusively for the purposes of its business and is, therefore, eligible for deduction under Section 37 of the Act?

- 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:1244-DB ITA No. 87 of 2023

2.

Heard Shri Sandeep Huilgol, learned advocate for the appellant and Shri E.I.Sanmathi, learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue.

3.

Undisputed facts of the case are, appellant is a resident of India and liable to pay tax on the global income for the assessment years 2009-10 to 2014-15. The assessee had received certain income outside the country and paid tax on the same as per the extant law in that country. According to the assessee, the same is not taxable in India. Consequently, he has claimed deduction of tax paid in foreign countries under Section 37(1) of the Act1. The A.O.2 and the DRP3 have rejected the same. On appeal, the ITAT has not considered this question. The assessee filed a Misc. Petition for reconsideration of this ground and the same has also been rejected. Hence, this appeal.

1 Income Tax Act, 1961 2 Assessing Officer 3 Dispute Resolution Panel

- 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:1244-DB ITA No. 87 of 2023

4.

Shri Huilgol submitted that the income in the relevant assessment year was taxable in foreign countries and said tax has been paid. The A.O, DRT as also ITAT have not considered this aspect and the Misc. Petition filed before the ITAT has also been dismissed. Shri Huilgol further submitted that the Bombay High Court, in identical circumstances, in Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, City-VI, Mumbai4, has granted the relief and the said order has been accepted by the Department and followed by the ITAT in assessee’s own case for the assessment years 2015-16 to 2017-18. Therefore, assessee is entitled for reconsideration of the matter in the hands of the ITAT.

5.

Shri Sanmathi, in his usual fairness, does not dispute the said submission and submitted that the ITAT may be directed to reconsider the matter and all questions may be kept open for the revenue to urge.

4 2016 SCC OnLine Bom10018

- 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:1244-DB ITA No. 87 of 2023

6.

In view of the above, the following: ORDER i) Appeal is allowed; ii) Order dated 05.10.2020

in IT(TP)A No.99/Bang/2014 passed by the ITAT, ‘C’ Bench, Bengaluru, is set aside and the matter is remitted to the file of ITAT for reconsideration in accordance with law; and iii) All contentions of both parties are kept open. No costs.

Sd/- JUDGE

Sd/- JUDGE

YN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43

More judgments on Section 37

All 4,334 judgments and leading authorities on Section 37 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →