THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TX vs. MOSER BAER INDIA LTD.
What did the High Court hold?
The Tribunal held that stock transfers to the Rotterdam unit, which were subsequently sold by the unit, constituted exports. It also followed a precedent where similar transfers were considered exports, entitling the assessee to the claimed exemptions.
What were the facts?
The assessee, engaged in manufacturing computer products, claimed exemption under Section 10A/10B for its export-oriented units. The Assessing Officer denied this, stating direct exports were less than 75% of total sales, as stock transfers to a Rotterdam unit were not considered actual sales.
What were the issues?
Whether stock transfers to a foreign unit, which are subsequently sold by that unit, qualify as direct exports for the purpose of claiming exemptions under Section 10A/10B. Whether the 75% export sales criteria is met when considering such stock transfers as exports.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cited by 7 judgments on BharatTax
See all citing judgments →Counted from the text of the judgments hosted here. Most recent first.
- DCIT, New Delhi v. M/S. Exxon Mobil Lubricants Pvt. Ltd., New DelhiDelhi · 2026-01-07
- M/S. Acer India Private Limited, Bangalore v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, BangaloreBangalore · 2019-05-10
- Kaybee P.Ltd, Mumbai v. ITO 10(1)(3) (Erstwhile Juridictional ITO 8(2)(2), MumbaiMumbai · 2018-08-08
- ITO 9(2)(1), Mumbai v. Intertoll Ics India P. Ltd, MumbaiMumbai · 2016-05-25
- Goodyear India Ltd., Faridabad v. ACIT, New DelhiDelhi · 2016-04-29

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 22.09.2008
<u>ITA No. 824/2008</u>
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-II
.... Appellant
-versus-
MOSER BAER INDIA LTD
Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant
Mr R. D. Jolly
For the Respondent
Mr Ajay Vohra & Ms Kavita Jha
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
- 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2. To be referred to Reporters or not? - 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)
This appeal is directed against the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's order dated 30.11.2007 passed in ITA No. 4992/Del/ 2003 pertaining to the assessment year 2000-01.

The Assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing of 2. computer related products including floppies and compact discs. The said business is carried on through its industrial undertakings which are, inter alia, 100% export oriented undertakings. The assessee had claimed exemption under Section 10A/10B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in respect of the profits earned by it. According to the Assessing Officer, out of the total sales of Rs 148.75 crores of the assessee's three units, direct export sales were only to the extent of Rs 72.78 crores and the remaining sales were on account of stock transfer to the assessee's Rotterdam unit amounting to Rs 73.46 crores. There was a certain amount of domestic sales amounting to Rs 2.33 crores and sale of scrap amounting to Rs 0.18 crores. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the assessee was not entitled to the exemptions under Section 10A/10B of the Act, since its direct exports were less than 75% of the total sales made during the year The Assessing Officer did not accept the under consideration. assessee's explanation that the stock transfers to the Rotterdam unit were actually export sales. It was the view of the Assessing Officer that this did not constitute direct exports as the same was not backed

by actual sale. Consequently, the Assessing Officer held that the profits of the assessee's undertakings were not eligible for the exemptions claimed under Section 10A/10B of the Act.
- 3. On appeal by the Assessee, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) accepted the plea of the Assessee and allowed the exemptions. He directed the Assessing Officer to re-compute the said exemptions in the light of the observations given by him in the detailed order passed by him. - 4. The matter was looked at by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal from two stand points. The first being from the stand point of its earlier decision in the case of <u>Virage Logic International v. Dy Director of Income Tax</u> wherein, under similar circumstances, the Tribunal was of the view that the transmission of computer software from the Indian entity to its head office situated outside, since it was a arms length price amount to export, entitled the assessee therein to claim exemption under Section 10A of the said Act. Following this decision, the Tribunal agreed with the plea raised by the Assessee and rejected the Revenue's contention that the Assessee was not entitled to exemptions under Section 10A/10B of the Act.

Apart from this, the Tribunal also considered the fact that in 5. the year in question, although, the entire stock which had been transferred from the three units in India to the Rotterdam unit only stock worth Rs 4,43,42,500/- was lying at the Rotterdam unit at the end of the year. In other words, the Tribunal was of the view that the rest of the stock which had been transferred during the year had actually been sold by the Rotterdam unit and therefore, would have to be construed as actual exports by the said units of the assessee. Since that constituted more than 75% of the total sale, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that there was no reason to deny exemptions claimed by the assessee under Section 10A/10B of the Act. This is a finding of fact which has not been shown to be perverse. The provisions as they stood for the relevant time in relation in the assessment year 2000-01 permitted the export oriented undertakings to claim exemption provided 75% of the total sales comprised of In the factual background narrated above, we find that 75% of the assessee's total sale by the eligible units comprised of This is a pure finding of fact and based upon this, the Tribunal has confirmed the order of the Commissioner of Income-

tax (Appeals) allowing the assessee's exemption claimed by him in respect of its units under Section 10A/10B of the Act.
We see no reasons to interfere with this finding of fact. In any event, no substantial question of law arises for our consideration. The appeal is dismissed.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
Ry. VILLLIL
September 22, 2008 mk
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 →- Dwaraka Jewellers, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S N D Waddar And Co vs. Sri Gaurav GuptaKarnataka · 30 Oct 2026
- Kanwar Enterprises Private Limited vs. The Joint Commissioner - State TaxTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bangi Mines And Minerals vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Arka Business Solutions vs. Principal Commissioner Of CustomsTelangana · 30 Oct 2026