ITO 10(3)(4), MUMBAI vs. PRAXIS INTERACTIVE SERVICES P.LTD, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4637/MUM/2015Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 August 2019AY 2011-124 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following Supreme Court precedents that expenses excluded from export turnover should also be excluded from total turnover. It also affirmed that Section 10AA deduction is to be given before setting off losses.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order which directed the AO to exclude foreign travel and consultancy expenses from total turnover for Section 10AA deduction. The CIT(A) also allowed carry forward of losses without setting them off against income eligible for Section 10AA deduction.

What were the issues?

Whether foreign expenses should be excluded from total turnover for Section 10AA deduction and whether losses can be carried forward without setting off against Section 10AA eligible income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10AA,Section 143(3),Section 72

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C”, BENCH

Before: SHRI M.BALAGANESH, AM & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM

For Respondent: Shri Abi Rama Kartikeyan
Hearing: 31/07/2019Pronounced: 02/08/2019

आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M): This appeal in A.Y.2011-12 arises out of the order by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-17, Mumbai in appeal No.CIT(A)-17/IT-15/14-15 dated 15/05/2015 (ld. CIT(A) in short) against the order of assessment passed u/s.143(3)of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act) dated 04/02/2014 by the ld. Income Tax Officer-8(2)(4), Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as ld. AO).

M/s. Praxis Interactive Services Pvt Ltd.

2.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee. Since the issue involved in revenue’s appeal is already covered, we proceed to dispose off the appeal after hearing the ld DR and based on materials available on record.

3.

The first issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld CITA was justified in directing the ld AO to exclude Rs 1.38 crores comprising of foreign travel expenses, professional consultancy services, US office support services and other expenses from the total turnover for the purpose of computation of deduction u/s 10AA of the Act.

4.

We have heard the ld DR and perused the materials available on record. We find that the assessee had incurred the following expenses in foreign currency:-

1.

Travelling Expenses - Rs 24,24,389/- Professional consultancy services - Rs 9,38,261/- US Office support services - Rs 1,04,62,522/- Other Expenses - Rs 19,581/- ----------------------- Total -Rs 1,38,44,752/-

The ld AO reduced the aforesaid expenditure incurred in foreign currency for providing technical services outside India from the Export Turnover while computing the deduction u/s 10AA of the Act and accordingly determined the deduction u/s 10AA of the Act at Rs 9,24,48,725/-. There is no dispute that the assessee is entitled for deduction u/s 10AA of the Act in the instant case. The ld CITA held that items that were excluded from export turnover should also be correspondingly reduced from total turnover also and hence it would not alter the claim of deduction u/s 10AA of the Act for the assessee. We find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs HCL Technologies Ltd in Civil Appeal No. 8489-8490 of 2013 reported in 404

M/s. Praxis Interactive Services Pvt Ltd.

ITR 719 (SC) had held that items that were excluded from export turnover should also be excluded from total turnover. In view of this decision, we find no infirmity in the order of the ld CITA in this regard. Accordingly, the Ground No.1 raised by the revenue is dismissed.

5.

The next ground to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld CITA was justified in directing the ld AO to allow the carry forward of losses without setting it off against the income eligible for deduction u/s 10AA of the Act.

6.

We have heard the ld DR. We find that the ld CITA had placed reliance on the order passed by his predecessor for Asst Year 2010-11 in assessee’s own case in Appeal No. CIT(A)-17/IT-157/13-14 dated 9.5.2014 wherein by placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs Black & Veatch Consulting P Ltd reported in 348 ITR 72 (Bom) wherein it was held that section 10A is a deduction provision and not an exemption provision ; that section 10A benefit has to be given effect to at the stage of computing the profits and gains of business ; that it is anterior to the application of the provisions of section 72 of the Act which deals with the carry forward and set off of business losses. In other words, it was held that the deduction u/s 10A of the Act is to be allowed without setting off of carry forward unabsorbed losses and the depreciation from the earlier assessment year or current assessment year either in the case of non-STPI unit or in the case of very same undertaking. Following the said decision, the ld CITA for the year under consideration directed the ld AO to allow the carried forward of losses without setting it off against the income exigible for deduction u/s 10A of the Act. We find that similar views were endorsed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs Rangsons Electronics Pvt Ltd

M/s. Praxis Interactive Services Pvt Ltd. reported in 398 ITR 619 (SC) and in the case of CIT vs Yokogawa India Ltd – 391 ITR 274 (SC). Hence respectfully following the same, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld CITA in this regard. Accordingly, the Ground No.2 raised by the revenue is dismissed.

7.

The Ground Nos. 3 & 4 raised by the revenue are general in nature and does not require any specific adjudication.

8.

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on this 02/08/2019

More judgments on Section 10AA

All 857 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10AA →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →