No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BENGALURU BENCH A, BENGALURU
Before: SHRI. INTURI RAMA RAO
PER LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER :
This appeal filed by the Revenue arises out of the order of the CIT (A) -7, Bengaluru, dt.25.01.2017, for the assessment year 2010- 11, on the following grounds :
Ita.926/Bang/2017 Page - 2
Brief facts are that the assessee company is engaged in the business-of back office services. The return was filed declaring a total taxable income of Rs. 14,64,7391-. The assessee has claimed exemption u/s 10B of IT Act of Rs.3,89,32,560/-. During the assessment proceeding, the AO observed that the assessee ought to have reduced expenditure on account of expenses incurred on account of communication expenses of Rs.13,54,50/-, freight charges Rs.2,13,396/-, connectivity charges Rs.40,30,1351- and other expenses incurred in Foreign currency toward foreign travel of Rs.96,43,134/-, all totaling to Rs.1,16,41,171/-, from the 'export Ita.926/Bang/2017 Page - 3 turnover' for the computation of deduction u/s 10B of IT Act as these expenses incurred are directly attributable to the delivery of Computer Software outside India. The AO, therefore held that these expenses which are debited to P&L Account ought to have been reduced from 'export turnover' are but has not been reduced from export turnover'. The AC) thereafter proceeded to re-compute deduction u/s 10B of IT Act after reducing the amount of Rs.1,16,41,171/- from the 'export turnover'. The AO did not propose any change in the 'total turnover'. The AO also found that as per the Auditors Certificate in Form No.56G, dt 04.03.2013, the appellant has brought the exports sale proceeds in India, in convertible foreign exchange within the stipulated time except for an amount of Rs. 11,21,718/-. The AO opined that the provisions of section 10B(3) of IT Act provides that the sale proceeds from export has to be brought in India within the specified time or within the extended period granted by the competent authority. The AO further observed that for the purpose of computing the proportionate profit of the undertaking as contemplated u/s.10B(4) of IT Act. The provisions of section 10B(3) of IT Act ought to have been complied with which is missing in the case of assessee. The AO thereafter, inferred that the intent of legislation is to ensure that the receipts are brought into the country and to minimise the outflow of foreign exchange and if any portion of receipt is not realized within the stipulated time frame then the concession in the form of deduction n/s 10(l) of IT Act is not available, The AO also examined the fact that the assessee has not sought any extension of time as per the provisions of section 155(11A) of IT Act. Accordingly the claim of assessee for deduction u/s.10B of IT Act was disallowed. Aggrieved by this order the Ita.926/Bang/2017 Page - 4 assessee filed an appeal before the CIT (A).
The CIT (A), being not convinced with the order of the AO, allowed the assessee’s appeal. Being aggrieved, Revenue is in appeal before us with the grounds of appeal reproduced elsewhere in this order.
3. In respect of ground no.2, wherein the Revenue is aggrieved that that the CIT (A) has allowed the benefit of deduction u/s.10B to the EOU even when the sale proceeds receivable in foreign exchange have been partly received and further received beyond the stipulated time.
We find no reason to interfere with the finding given by the CIT (A). The CIT (A) in paras 5.1 to 5.5, has held has under :
Ita.926/Bang/2017 Page - 5 Ita.926/Bang/2017 Page - 6 From the reading of the above, we find the finding given by the CIT (A) is in accordance with law and no contrary view is possible . However, we would like to add that if the assessee has failed to realise the entire export proceeds then the deduction u/s.10B would be calculated only on the basis of the sum realised, over the total turnover instead of gross export proceeds (realised + unrealised) over the total export turnover. If the total profits are Rs.100 and the sum of Rs.200/- out of the total turnover of Rs.1,000/- has not been realised, the equation to be applied for working out the deduction u/s.10B would be Rs.100 x Rs.800 ÷ Rs.1000. If we take the other formula i.e., Rs.100 x Rs.800 ÷ Rs.800/- then, there will not be any effect on the profit of the assessee. In view of the above, we direct the authorities below to take only the sum realised out of the sale proceeds received in India, instead of the total amount of the sale proceeds of the article / thing exported outside India. Accordingly we uphold the order of the CIT (A). The ground no.2 of the Revenue is dismissed.
Ground nos.3 and 4 are in respect of the direction of the AO to exclude from total turnover items like telecom charges and other expenses incurred in foreign currency be deducted from the export turnover as well, for working out the deduction u/s.10A.
We have the rival submissions. We find that the CIT (A) had 06. followed the judgment of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Tata Elxsi Ltd v. CIT [349 ITR 98], in directing exclusion of Ita.926/Bang/2017 Page - 7 items which are deducted from export turnover also to be deducted from the total turnover also for working out the deduction u/s.10A of the Act. Just for a reason that appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the judgment of jurisdictional High Court would not be a reason not to follow the jurisdictional High Court’s judgment. We do not find any lacunae in the order of CIT (A).
In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on the 27th day of October, 2017.