TORRY HARRIS BUSINESS SOLUTIONS (P) LTD.,BANGALORE vs. ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 315/BANG/2016Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 November 2016AY 2007-085 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) in the first round had only directed the exclusion of specific expenses (telecommunication, insurance, foreign exchange) from both export and total turnover. No directions were given regarding other expenditures. Therefore, the AO's subsequent order was found to be in compliance with the CIT(A)'s directions.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed deduction u/s 10A of the IT Act. The AO excluded certain expenses from export turnover but not from total turnover, contrary to the assessee's claim that the entire receipt of Rs. 23,43,473/- should be excluded. The CIT(A) had previously directed exclusion of specific expenses from both export and total turnover.

What were the issues?

Whether the AO correctly implemented the CIT(A)'s directions regarding the exclusion of expenses from export and total turnover for the purpose of Section 10A deduction.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)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 : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV & SHRI A. K. GARODIA

For Appellant: Shri. R. Sreenivasan, CA
For Respondent: Shri. M. K. Biju, JCIT
Hearing: 09.11.2016Pronounced: 11.11.2016

Per Sunil Kumar Yadav, Judicial Member

1.

This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order of CIT(A) on the following grounds: i. The officers below were not justified in ignoring the income of Rs.23,43,473/- for the purpose of computation of deduction u/s 10 A of the IT Act. ii. The Officers below have not properly given effect to the order of CIT (A) in C-12(4) /

CIT(A)-III/Bang/2013-14 dated 13/07/2014. iii. The officers below failed to appreciate that as long as an item of income has been assessed as business income, such income will also qualify for deduction u/s 10 A.

2.

During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee had invited our attention to the order of the CIT(A) passed in first round with the submission that CIT(A) has directed the AO to exclude certain expenses excluded from the export turnover from the total turnover, following the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Tata Elxsi Ltd., 349 ITR 98. Consequently the AO has passed an order excluding the expenses incurred on telecommunication, insurance as well as expenses incurred in foreign exchange from the export turnover as well as the total turnover.

3.

According to the assessee, the entire receipt of Rs.24,43,473/- are to be excluded as it is attributable to the business of the assessee. But the AO had not excluded the same. Therefore, he has not complied with the directions of the CIT(A).

4.

The assessee referred to an appeal before the CIT(A) but did not find favour with him as CIT(A) has held that the AO has properly passed an order in compliance with the directions of the CIT(A).

5.

Now the assessee is in appeal before the tribunal and reiterated its contentions; Whereas the learned DR has submitted that in para 7 of the order of the CIT(A) in first round, the CIT(A) has dealt with the exclusion of the expenses on telecommunication, insurance as well as the expenditure incurred on foreign exchange from the total export turnover, following the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Tata Elxsi (supra), the CIT(A) has directed the AO to exclude the expenses from the total turnover of export.

6.

Pursuance to these directions, the AO has passed the consequential order. From the reading of the para 7 in the CIT(A), it is abundantly clear that CIT(A) has issued directions for the exclusion of the expenditure on telecommunication, insurance as well as the expenditure incurred on foreign exchange from the export turnover as well as from the total turnover. Therefore there is no ambiguity in the assessment order passed consequent to the order of the CIT(A).

7.

Having carefully examined the order of the CIT(A) passed in first round, we find that CIT(A) has issued directions for the exclusion of the expenses incurred on telecommunication, insurance as well as expenditure incurred on foreign exchange from the export turnover and also from the total turnover following the judgment of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Tata Elxsi Ltd., (supra). For the sake of reference, we extract the relevant para 7 of CIT(A) as under:

“Ground No. 7 to 11 are against the reworking of deduction u/s 10A, AO in the assessment order has excluded the expenses on telecommunication, insurance as well as expenditure incurred in foreign exchange from the export turnover. However this amount is not excluded from the total turnover. In this regard appellant has relied on the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case

TATA Elxsi Limited 349 ITR 98. I find this issue is squarely covered in favour of the appellant by the jurisdictional High Court which has held as follows:

In other words, if the export turnover in the numerator is to be arrived at after excluding certain expenses, the same should also be excluded in computing the export turnover as a component of total turnover in the denominator. The reason being the total turnover includes export turnover. The components of the export turnover in the numerator and the denominator cannot be different. Therefore, though there is no definition of the term total turnover in section 10A, there is nothing in the said section to mandate that what is excluded from the numerator that is export turnover would nevertheless form part of the denominator.”

Page 5 of 5 8. From careful reading of the aforesaid para of the CIT(A), we find that the CIT(A) has not given any direction with respect to other expenditures incurred and were excluded from the export turnover. Therefore we find no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) who has confirmed the order of the AO, passed consequent to the directions of CIT(A) in first round.

9.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

Pronounced in the open court on this 11th day of November, 2016.

More judgments on Section 10A

All 2,147 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →