Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D”
Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI N. K. PRADHAN, AM
M/s Niko (Nelpio) Ltd. DCIT (IT) - 3 (3) (1), 407-411/311 Oberoi Mumbai बिधम/ Chamber II, Plot no. Pin- 645/646, New Link Road, Vs. Andheri(west) Mumbai-400053. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ PAN No. AACCN4402A (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri Ram Tiwari, DR प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri Rakesh Mohan and Shri NiravPoddar, AR सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 24.04.18 Date of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 23.05.18 Date of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R
Per Sandeep Gosain, Judicial Member:
The present Appeal filed by the revenue is against the order of Ld. CIT (Appeal) – 57, Mumbai dated 28.12.15 for AY 2011-12.
M/s Niko (Nelpio) Ltd.
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee company Niko (Nelpio) Limited is a company incorporated in the CaymanIslands and is a tax resident of Cyprus.It entered into a joint venture project forexploration and development of an oil and gas field in India. This joint venture had been entered into by the assessee company with Reliance Industries Ltd. (RIL) having 90% participating interest and the appellant company holding the balance 10% of the participating interest. The return of income for AY 2011-12 declaring total at Rs. NIL (after adjusting brought forward losses) under normal provisions and declaring income of Rs 83,40,833/- u/s 115JB was filed by the assessee foreign company on 30.11.11. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the I.T Act. Thereafter, the case of assessee was selected for scrutiny and after serving statutory notices and seeking reply of the assessee, order of assessment u/s 143(3)r.w.s. 144C of I.T Act was passed by the AO on 16.04.14 thereby holding that the foreign exchange gain earned by the assessee does not form part of the business activities carried out by the assessee during the year and thus in this way, the same was not considered as business income.
M/s Niko (Nelpio) Ltd. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. CIT(A) after considering the case of both the parties,partly allowed the appeal of the assessee and deleted the additions. Now before us, the revenue has preferred the present appeal by raising the above grounds.
The solitary ground raised by the revenue relates to challenging the order of Ld. CIT(A)in treating the income of Rs. 1,33,11,676 as Business Income ignoring the fact that assessee has earned foreign exchange gain of Rs. 1,33,11,676/-, which do not form part of business activities carried out by the assessee during the year and hence the same cannot be considered as ‘business income.’
We have heard counsels for both the parties at length and we have also perused the material placed on record as well as the orders passed by revenue authorities. Before we decide the merits of the case, it is necessary to evaluate the orders passed by Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) has M/s Niko (Nelpio) Ltd. dealt with the above grounds raised by the revenue in para no. 7 ofitsorder. The operative portion of the order of Ld. CIT(A) is contained in sub-para no. 3.4 of its order and the same is reproduced below:-
3.4 Decision: As regards foreign exchange gains, the Production Sharing Contract covers that issue. In para 1.6.2 of the general provisions under section 1 of the accounting procedure under the Production Sharing Contract it is specified that any realized or unrealized gains or losses from the exchange of currency in respect of petroleum operations shall be credited or charged to the accounts. It has been so specified because under the Production Sharing Contract the accounts are required to be maintained in both US dollars and Indian rupees while expenses in India have to be made in Indian rupees. Sale of petroleum products is to be accounted in US dollars. This would lead to frequent transaction of currency for accounting purposes. Accordingly, the gains or loss on account of such foreign exchange fluctuation/ translation is permitted by the Production Sharing Contract to be recognised in the accounts prepared there under. It is also seen that the Apex Court in the Enron case (305 ITR 75) had M/s Niko (Nelpio) Ltd. specifically allowed the foreign exchange losses and gains to be taken into account while preparing the financial statements of the business. Keeping in mind these relevant facts, taxation of foreign exchange gain under the head other sources was not required to be made in the facts of the present case. Therefore, on this issue, I follow the stand CIT(A) in the Niko (Neco) Ltd.'s case in AY 2008-09 and AY 2009-10 and hence the appeal filed by the appellant company on this account is hereby allowed.
After having gone through the facts of the present case as well as considering the orders passed by revenue authorities and submissions made by both the parties, we find that Ld. CIT(A) has rightly appreciated the facts of the present case and come to the conclusion that the taxation of foreign exchange gain under the head ‘other sources’ was not required to be made. While doing so, Ld. CIT(A) has correctly appreciated the production sharing contract which covers this issue in para no. 1.6.2 of the general provisions u/s 1 of the accounting procedure under the Production Sharing Contract, wherein it is specified that any realized or unrealized gains or losses from the exchange of currency in respect of petroleum operations shall be credited or M/s Niko (Nelpio) Ltd. charged to the accounts. Ld. CIT(A) has also considered the terms of the Production Sharing Contract wherein, it was specified that the accounts are required to be maintained in both US dollars and Indian rupees, while expenses in India have to be made in Indian rupees. Since the sale of petroleum products is to be accounted in US dollar and that lead to frequent transaction of currency for accounting purposes. Accordingly, the gains or loss on account of such foreign exchange fluctuation/ translation was permitted by Production Sharing Contract to be recognized in the accounts prepared there under. We further notice that while reaching to the above conclusion, Ld. CIT(A) has correctly relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Enron (305 ITR 75), wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has specifically allowed the foreign exchange losses and gains to be taken into account while preparing the financial statements of the business. Apart from above, Ld. CIT(A) in assessee’s own case for AY 2008-09 and AY 2009-10 had allowed the said ground by holding the foreign exchange gain as business income. Moreover, no new facts or contrary judgments have been brought on record before us in order to controvert or rebut the M/s Niko (Nelpio) Ltd. findings so recorded by Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, there are no reasons for us to interfere into or deviate from the findings recorded by the Ld.CIT(A). Hence, we are of the considered view that the findings so recorded by the Ld. CIT (A) are judicious and are well reasoned. Resultantly, this ground raised by the revenue stands dismissed.
In the net result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 23rd May, 2018 Sd/- Sd/- (N. K. Pradhan) (Sandeep Gosain) लेखासदस्य / Accountant Member न्याययकसदस्य / Judicial Member मुंबई Mumbai;यदनांकDated : 23.05.2018 Sr.PS. Dhananjay आदेशकीप्रनिनिनिअग्रेनर्ि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथी/ The Appellant 1. 2. प्रत्यथी/ The Respondent 3. आयकरआयुक्त(अपील) / The CIT(A) आयकरआयुक्त/ CIT- concerned 4. 5. यवभागीयप्रयतयनयध, आयकरअपीलीयअयधकरण, मुंबई/ DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गार्डफाईल / Guard File आदेशधिुसधर/ BY ORDER,