M/S WIPRO LIMITED,BANGALORE vs ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH: BANGALORE

Before: SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI & SHRI KESHAV DUBEY

For Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

Hearing: 13.06.2024Pronounced: 13.06.2024

PER BENCH:

Originally the assessee came in appeal before this Tribunal for the above assessment years. The Tribunal decided the issue of allowability of deduction u/s 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”) that portion of the income tax paid by the assessee outside India on its foreign profits in the respective foreign jurisdiction in which they were taxable and in respect of which credits has not been granted to the assessee in terms of section 90 read with the applicable DTAA or section 91 of the Act. Accordingly, to the extent of amount of foreign tax for which credit has not been so granted u/s 90 of the Act read with DTAA or section 91 of the Act, a claim of such amount was not allowed by the Tribunal as a business expenditure u/s 37(1) of the Act. Against this, assessee went in appeal before Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court. The Hon’ble High Court in ITA No.82 to 87/2023 dated 9.1.2024 remitted the issue to the file of the Tribunal as follows: “4. Shri Huilgol submitted that the income in the relevant assessment year was taxable in foreign countries and said tax has been paid. The A.O, DRT as also ITAT have not considered this aspect and ye Misc. Petition filed before the ITAT has also been dismissed. Shri Huilgol further submitted that the Bombay High Court, in identical circumstances, in Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, City-VI, Mumbai, has granted the relief and the said order has been accepted by the Department and followed by the ITAT in assessee's own case for the assessment years 2015-16 to 2017-18. Therefore, assessee is entitled for reconsideration of the matter in the hands of the ITAT.

IT(TP)A No.99/Bang/2014, IT(TP)A NO.398/Bang/2015, IT(TP)A No.222/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A Nos.492 & 2851/Bamg/2017 & IT(TP)A No.3115 of 2018 M/s. Wipro Limited, Bangalore Page 3 of 43 5. Shri Sanmathi, in his usual fairness, does not dispute the said submission and submitted that the ITAT may be directed to reconsider the matter and all questions may be kept open for the revenue to urge.

6.In view of the above, the following: ORDER i. Appeal is allowed; ii. Orderdated 05.10.2020 in No.398/Bang/2015 passed by the ITAT, 'C' Bench, Bengaluru, is set aside and the matter is remitted to the file of ITAT for reconsideration in accordance with law; and iii. All contentions of both parties are kept open. iv. No costs. 1.1. Hence, these appeals are listed for fresh hearing to dispose of the issue in dispute in all these appeals once again. 2. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. Admittedly, this issue came for consideration before this Tribunal in IT(TP)A No.2556/Bang/2019 for the assessment year 2015-16. The Tribunal vide order dated 23.5.2022 decided the issue in favour of the assessee as follows: “18. The sixteenth issue relates to the claim of foreign tax credit. The contentions raised by the assessee in this year is two-fold. The first contention relates to the allowability of quantum of foreign tax credit. The second contention is that the foreign tax paid, if not fully allowed, then the difference amount should be allowed as business expenditure.

18.1 With regard to the first contention, we notice that an identical issue was examined by the co-ordinate bench in the assessee’s own case in AY 2009-10 to 2014-15 in respect of tax credit and it was decided as under:- “9.10 We notice that the issue relating to foreign tax credit has been examined in detail for Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the assessee’s own case. For the sake of convenience, we extract below the relevant observations made by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka on this issue. 37. It is in this background, when we notice section 90 of the Act—relief from double taxation is granted in the following circumstances. Firstly, section 90(1)(b) of the Act speaks about avoidance of double taxation, i.e., the Central Government may enter into an agreement with the Government of any country for the avoidance of double taxation of income under this Act and under the

IT(TP)A No.99/Bang/2014, IT(TP)A NO.398/Bang/2015, IT(TP)A No.222/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A Nos.492 & 2851/Bamg/2017 & IT(TP)A No.3115 of 2018 M/s. Wipro Limited, Bangalore Page 4 of 43 corresponding law in force in other country, i.e., when tax is payable on income under this Act as well as under the cor- responding law in that country they could agree to tax in one country. This happens even before payment of any tax. By virtue of such agreement, tax is paid only in one country, that is how the benefit of double taxation relief by way of avoidance is granted to the assessee in both the countries. 38. Secondly, under section 90(1)(a)(i) of the Act, once such assessee has paid Income-tax, under the Act as well as the tax in the other country, by such agreement, relief could be given by giving credit of the tax paid in the foreign country to the assessee in India. In cases covered under this provision the assessee pays tax in both the jurisdictions. After payment of such tax, he is entitled to double taxation relief by way of credit in respect of the tax paid in the foreign jurisdiction. 39. Thirdly, in cases covered under section 90(1)(a)(ii) of the Act it is not a case of the income being subjected to tax or the assessee has paid tax on the income. This applies to a case where the income of the assessee is chargeable under this Act as well as in the corresponding law in force in the other country. Though the Income-tax is chargeable under the Act, it is open to Parliament to grant exemptions under the Act from payment of tax for any specified period. Normally it is done as an incentive to the assessee to carry on manufacturing activities or in providing the services. Though the Central Government may extend the said benefit to the assessee in this country, by negotiations with the other countries, they could also be requested to extend the same benefit. If the contracting country agrees to extend the said benefit, then the assessee gets the relief. In another scenario, though the said income is exempt in this country, by virtue of the agreement, the amount of tax paid in the other country could be given credit to the assessee. Thus for the payment of Income-tax in the foreign jurisdiction, the assessee gets the benefit of its credit in this country. 40. However, if the contracting country is not agreeable to extend the said benefits, then in terms of the agreement and probably in terms of the exemption granted, the assessee would be entitled to benefit only in this country on account of the exemption and the benefit in the other country is not extended. Thus when exemption is granted in respect of the income chargeable to tax under this Act in respect of which no benefit is granted in the corresponding country the assessee gets no benefit. However, if the benefit is extended to a portion of the income say for example 90 per cent. and 10 per cent. is subjected to tax then to that extent the assessee would be entitled to benefit of tax credit as he has paid tax in the foreign jurisdiction as per section 90(1)(a)(i) of the Act.

IT(TP)A No.99/Bang/2014, IT(TP)A NO.398/Bang/2015, IT(TP)A No.222/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A Nos.492 & 2851/Bamg/2017 & IT(TP)A No.3115 of 2018 M/s. Wipro Limited, Bangalore Page 5 of 43 41. In this connection, it is contended on behalf of the Revenue that if the income is chargeable to tax in India, then only the assessee can have the benefit of tax credit in respect of the tax paid in foreign jurisdiction. In respect of exemption under section 10A, the income derived is not included in the total income. It is not charged to Income-tax. Therefore, section 90 of the Act has no application at all. ……….

52.

Section 10A(1) speaks of "deduction". The deduction is of profits and gains for a period of ten consecutive assessment years. The said deduction is from the total income of the assessee. Therefore, the total income before allowing the said deduction includes the profits and gains from the business referred to in section 10A(1). Section 5 of the Act explains the scope of total income to mean all income from whatsoever source derived. Section 4 of the Act charges this total income. However, section 10A(1) provides that, subject to the provisions of the said section , profits and gains derived by an undertaking referred to in that section shall be allowed as deduction from the total income of the assessee. Therefore, by virtue of the aforesaid statutory provision namely section 10A of the Act, the income of the asses-see from exports in respect of the said unit is exempted from payment of Income-tax. The very fact that it is exempted from payment of tax means but for that exemption such income is chargeable to tax. This relief under section 10A is in the nature of exemption although termed as deduction. But for this exemption, the said income namely profits and gains derived by an undertaking, is chargeable to tax under the Act. The said exemption is only for a period of ten years. After the expiry of the said ten years the said income is taxable. When such exemption is given under the Act, but the said income is taxed in foreign jurisdiction, there is no relief to the assessee at all. Therefore, to promote mutual economic relations, trade and investment, the Act was amended by way of the Finance Act, 2003 which came into force from April 1, 2004. By insertion of a new clause (ii) in subsection (1)(a) of section 90 the Central Government has been vested with the power to enter into an agreement with the Government of any country outside India for the granting of relief in respect of Income-tax chargeable under the Income-tax Act or under the corresponding law in force in that country, to promote mutual economic relations, trade and investment. Therefore, the statute by itself is not granting any relief. But, by virtue of the statute, if an agreement is entered into providing for such relief, then the assessee would be entitled to such relief. …………………

IT(TP)A No.99/Bang/2014, IT(TP)A NO.398/Bang/2015, IT(TP)A No.222/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A Nos.492 & 2851/Bamg/2017 & IT(TP)A No.3115 of 2018 M/s. Wipro Limited, Bangalore Page 6 of 43 56. Therefore, it follows that the income under section 10A is chargeable to tax under section 4 and is includible in the total income under section 5, but no tax is charged because of the exemption given under section 10A only for a period of 10 years. Merely because the exemption has been granted in respect of the taxability of the said source of income, it cannot be postulated that the assessee is not liable to tax. The said exemption granted under the statute has the effect of suspending the collection of Income-tax for a period of 10 years. It does not make the said income not leviable to Income- tax. The said exemption granted under the statute stands revoked after a period of 10 years. Therefore, the case falls under section 90(1)(a)(ii). 57. In the background of this legal position, we have to look into the Double Taxation Agreements entered into between India and United States, Canada. (1) Indo-US Agreement : 58. Article 25 of the Indo-US Double Taxation Agreement deals with relief from double taxation. Clause 2(a) is the relevant provision. It reads as under (see [1991]187 ITR (St.) 102, 124) : "2(a) Where a resident of India derives income which, in accordance with the provisions of this Convention, may be taxed in the United States, India shall allow as a deduction from the tax on the income of that resident an amount equal to the Income-tax paid in the United States, whether directly or by deduction. Such deduction shall not, however, exceed that part of the Income-tax (as computed before the deduction is given) which is attributable to the income which may be taxed in the United States."

59.

A perusal of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that if a resident Indian derives income, which may be taxed in the United States, India shall allow as a deduction from the tax on the income of the resident, amount equal to the Income-tax paid in the United States of America, whether directly or by deduction. The conditions mandated in the treaty is that if any "income derived" and "tax paid in the United States of America on such income", then tax relief/credit shall be granted in India on such tax paid in the United States of America. The said provision does not speak of any Income-tax being paid by the resident Indian under the Income-tax Act as a condition precedent for claiming the said benefit. Where the Indian resident pays no tax on such income derived, whereas the said income is taxed in the United States,

IT(TP)A No.99/Bang/2014, IT(TP)A NO.398/Bang/2015, IT(TP)A No.222/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A Nos.492 & 2851/Bamg/2017 & IT(TP)A No.3115 of 2018 M/s. Wipro Limited, Bangalore Page 7 of 43 India shall allow..as a deduction from the tax on the income of that resident an amount equal to the Income-tax paid in the United States. Therefore, this provision is in conformity with section 90(1)(a)(ii) of the Act, i.e., the Income-tax chargeable under the Income-tax Act and in the corresponding law in force in the United States of America. Therefore, it is not the requirement of law that the assessee, before he claims credit under the Indo-US convention or under this provision of Act should pay tax in India on such income. However, the said provision makes it clear that such deduction shall not, however, exceed that part of the Income- tax (as computed before the deduction is given) which is attributable to the income which is to be taxed in the United States. Therefore, an embargo is prescribed for giving such tax credit. In other words, the assessee is entitled to such tax credit only in respect of that income, which is taxed in the United States. This provision became necessary because the accounting year in India varies from the accounting year in America. The accounting year in India starts from 1st of April and closes on 31st of March of the succeeding year. Whereas in America, the 1st of January is the commencement of the assessment year and ends on 31st of December of the same year. Therefore, the income derived by an Indian resident, which falls within the total income of a particular financial year when it is taxed in the United States, falls within two years in India. Therefore, while claiming credit in India, the assessee would be entitled to only the tax paid for that relevant financial year in America, i.e., the income attributable to that year in America. In other words, the Income-tax paid in the same calendar year in the United States of America is to be accounted for two financial years in India. Of course, this exercise should be done by the assessing authority on the basis of the material to be produced by the assessee. (2) Indo-Canada agreement : 60. In so far as the Indo-Canada Double Taxation Agreement is concerned, article 23 deals with elimination of double taxation. It provides that the laws in force in either of the Contracting States will continue to govern the taxation of income in the respective Contracting States except where pro- visions to the contrary are made in this agreement. In the case of India, double taxation should be eliminated as follows (see [1998] 229 ITR (St.) 44, 64) : "3(a) The amount of Canadian tax paid, under the laws of Canada and in accordance with the provisions of the agreement, whether directly or by deduction, by a resident of India, in respect of income from sources

IT(TP)A No.99/Bang/2014, IT(TP)A NO.398/Bang/2015, IT(TP)A No.222/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A Nos.492 & 2851/Bamg/2017 & IT(TP)A No.3115 of 2018 M/s. Wipro Limited, Bangalore Page 8 of 43 within Canada which has been subjected to tax both in India and Canada shall be allowed as a credit against the Indian tax payable in respect of such income but in an amount not exceeding that proportion of Indian tax, which such income bears to the entire income chargeable to Indian tax." 61. A reading of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that the benefit of article 23 would be available to an assessee in India only in respect of the income from sources within Canada, which has been subjected to tax both in India and Canada, which forms part of the total income of the assessee and has suffered tax in India under the Income-tax Act and has suffered tax in Canada also, i.e., assessee has paid tax both in India as well as in Canada on the same income. Then the agreement provides the tax paid in Canada shall be allowed as a credit against the Indian tax payable in respect of such income. However, the said benefit is confined only to the extent of an amount not exceeding that proportion of Indian tax, which such income bears to the entire income chargeable to Indian tax. In other words if the Income-tax paid in India is less than the Income-tax paid in Canada, the assessee would be entitled to relief only to the extent of tax paid in India and not to the extent of tax paid in Canada. Therefore, this clause is in conformity with section 90(1)(a)(i) of the Act. As a corollary if the assessee is exempted from payment of tax in India, then if the same income is sub- jected to tax in Canada, according to the treaty, there is no double taxation. Therefore, the benefit of this treaty is not available to the Indian assessee. 62. It is submitted on behalf of the assessee that by virtue of the formulae prescribed under section 10A(4), entire export profits had not got exempted under section 10A, residuary surplus being subjected to tax both in India and Canada. This residuary surplus could qualify for tax credit as it is subjected to tax in both the countries. 63. As is clear from the aforesaid clause in the Indo-Canadian agreement if the income from source within Canada, is lower, has been subjected to tax both in India and Canada then, the tax paid in Canada shall be allowed as a credit against the Indian tax paid in respect of such income. If the entire income assessed by the assessee under section 10A is exempted in India, then, the aforesaid clause does not confer any benefit on the assessee. However, notwithstanding the aforesaid provision, if any portion of the income falling under section 10A is subjected to tax then, by virtue of aforesaid provision, the tax paid in Canada corresponding to the income subjected to tax in India, the assessee would be entitled to credit of the tax paid in Canada. However, this exercise has to be done by

IT(TP)A No.99/Bang/2014, IT(TP)A NO.398/Bang/2015, IT(TP)A No.222/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A Nos.492 & 2851/Bamg/2017 & IT(TP)A No.3115 of 2018 M/s. Wipro Limited, Bangalore Page 9 of 43 the assessing authority on the basis of materials to be produced by the assessee and after giving effect to the formulae prescribed under section 10A(4) of the Act. (3) No agreement with states :

64.

Whether the assessee is entitled to the aforesaid benefit when India has no agreement with the States where tax is levied on the income of the assessee. 65. Section 91 of the Act specifically deals with the said question. The afore said section reads as under : "91. Countries with which no agreement exists.—(1) If any person who is resident in India in any previous year proves that, in respect of his income which accrued or arose during that previous year outside India (and which is not deemed to accrue or arise in India), he has paid in any country with which there is no agreement under section 90 for the relief or avoidance of double taxation, Income-tax, by deduction or otherwise, under the law in force in that country, he shall be entitled to the deduction from the Indian Income-tax payable by him of a sum calculated on such doubly taxed income at the Indian rate of tax or the rate of tax of the said country whichever is the lower, or at the Indian rate of tax if both the rates are equal . . . (iv) the expression 'Income-tax' in relation to any country includes any excess profits tax or business profits tax charged on the profits by the Government of any part of that country or a local authority in that country." 66. The said provision provides for deduction of the tax paid in any country from the Indian Income-tax payable by him of a sum calculated on such doubly taxed income even though there is no agreement under section 90 for the relief or avoidance of double taxation. Explanation (iv) defines the expression Income-tax in relation to any country includes any excess profit tax or business profits tax charged on the profits by the Government of any part of that country or a local authority in that country. Therefore the intention of Parliament is very clear. The Income- tax in relation to any country includes Income-tax paid in any part of the country or a local authority. It applies to cases where in a federal structure a citizen is made to pay federal Income- tax and also the State income tax. The Income-tax in relation to any country includes Income-tax paid not only to the Federal Government of that country, but also any Income-tax charged by any part of that country meaning a State or a local authority,

IT(TP)A No.99/Bang/2014, IT(TP)A NO.398/Bang/2015, IT(TP)A No.222/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A Nos.492 & 2851/Bamg/2017 & IT(TP)A No.3115 of 2018 M/s. Wipro Limited, Bangalore Page 10 of 43 and the assessee would be entitled to the relief of double taxation benefit with respect to the latter payment also. Therefore, even in the absence of an agreement under section 90 of the Act, by virtue of the statutory provision, the benefit con- ferred under section 91 of the Act is extended to the Income-tax paid in foreign jurisdictions. India has entered into an agreement with the federal country and not with any State within that country. In order to extend the benefit of this, relief or avoidance of double taxation, the aforesaid Explanation explicitly makes it clear that Income-tax in relation to any country includes the Income-tax paid to the Government of any part of that country or a local authority in that country. Therefore, even though, India has not entered into any agreement with the State of a country and if the assessee has paid Income- tax to that State, the Income-tax paid in relation to that State is also eligible for being given credit to the assessee in India. Therefore, the argument that in the absence of an agreement between India and the State, the benefit of section 90 is not available to the assessee is ex-facie illegal and requires to be set aside.

We notice that the Hon’ble High Court has accepted all the contentions of the assessee on various aspects discussed above. 9.11 We are also of the view that the expressions used in sec. 90(1)(a)(i) and (ii) and in sec.91 would also merit attention in this regard. Section 90(1)(a)(i) uses the expression “income on which have been paid both income tax….”. Section 91(1) uses the expression “If any person who is resident in India in any previous year proves that in respect of his income which accrued or arose during the previous year outside India (and which is not deemed to accrue or arise in India), he has paid in any Country with which there is no agreement under section 90 for the relief or avoidance of double taxation, income tax, by deduction or otherwise….. It can be noticed that, “payment of tax” is mentioned both in sec.90(1)(a)(i) and sec. 91. However, section 90(1)(a)(ii) uses the expression “income tax chargeable under this Act and under the Corresponding law in force in that Country…..” Thus, it can be noticed that the provisions of sec.90(1)(a)(i) and sec.91(1) refers to actual payment made in the foreign Country and the provisions of sec.90(1)(a)(ii) refers to “income tax chargeable under this Act and under the corresponding law in force in that Country”, i.e., there is no reference to actual payment of tax. 9.12 Accordingly, following the binding decision of High Court, we set aside the order passed by A.O. on this issue and direct him to allow foreign taxes credit claimed by the assessee in terms of decision rendered by Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka referred above.”

18.2 Following the above said decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional Karnataka High Court, we set aside the order passed by AO on this issue and direct him to allow

IT(TP)A No.99/Bang/2014, IT(TP)A NO.398/Bang/2015, IT(TP)A No.222/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A Nos.492 & 2851/Bamg/2017 & IT(TP)A No.3115 of 2018 M/s. Wipro Limited, Bangalore Page 11 of 43 foreign tax credit claimed by the assessee in terms of the decision rendered by Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka referred above. 18.3 The second contention of the assessee is that the foreign tax paid by the assessee, to the extent not given credit, should be allowed as business expenditure. The submission made by the assessee in this regard are extracted below:- “FTC to be allowed as Business expense: If relief from double taxation is denied for the reason that the income-tax paid or deducted in any foreign country is not eligible for relief u/s 90 or u/s 91, such tax paid of Rs. 117.32 Crores is deductible u/s 37(1) of the Act or allowable as a loss u/s 28 and such unrelieved foreign taxes are not covered by the restriction in Section 40(a)(ii) of the Act. But for the restriction imposed by clause (ii) of section 40a, income-taxes paid or deducted in foreign countries by the assessee-company is an expenditure laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business carried on by the assessee outside India and the same is deductible u/s 37 of the Act. In any case, it is a loss incurred by the assesse- company in carrying on business outside India and such tax is allowable u/s 28 of the Act. A plain reading of the aforesaid provision makes it abundantly clear that foreign taxes paid on profits or gains is not deductible only to the extent relief is eligible u/s 90 or deduction is eligible u/s 91. To the extent relief u/s 90 or deduction u/s 91 is denied as ineligible, the company is eligible for deduction u/s 37 or as a loss u/s 28 of the Act. Further, we wish to submit that the said amount shall also be allowed as a deduction from the book profits as “taxes levied under any Act other than Income Tax Act” is not covered in the inclusion given in Explanation – 2 u/s 115JB. We wish to reproduce the definition of income tax as provided in Explanation – 2: « Explanation 2.—For the purposes of clause (a) of Explanation 1, the amount of income-tax shall include— (i) any tax on distributed profits under section 115-O or on distributed income under section 115R; (ii) any interest charged under this Act; (iii) surcharge, if any, as levied by the Central Acts from time to time; (iv) Education Cess on income-tax, if any, as levied by the Central Acts from time to time; and (v) Secondary and Higher Education Cess on income-tax, if any, as levied by the Central Acts from time to time.] Further, it is submitted that FTC claim for Australia and Oman for the current assessment year includes the additional liability arising during the financial year 2017-18 for an amount of AUD 27,69,773 and 17,775 OMR respectively. Based on the above, we request your goodself to allow full credit based on DTAA or the proportionate foreign tax credit on profits which are taxed in the eligible units or allow deduction u/s 37 or as a loss u/s 28, as these profits have been subject to double taxation. Further, we request your goodself to allow the credit for the additional liability arising in Australia over above the liability in the branch tax return 18.4 We notice that the above said claim of the assessee finds support from the decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Reliance

IT(TP)A No.99/Bang/2014, IT(TP)A NO.398/Bang/2015, IT(TP)A No.222/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A Nos.492 & 2851/Bamg/2017 & IT(TP)A No.3115 of 2018 M/s. Wipro Limited, Bangalore Page 12 of 43 Infrastructure Ltd vs. CIT (2016)(390 ITR 271)(Bom). The relevant discussions made by Hon’ble Bombay High Court are extracted below:-

“(j) This Court in S. Inder Singh Gill (supra) was required to answer the question whether for the purpose of computing total world income of the assessee as defined in Section 2(15) of the I. T. Act, the income accruing in Uganda has to be reduced by the tax paid to the Uganda Government in respect of such income? The Court while answering the question in the negative observed that it is not aware of any commercial principle/practice which lays down that the tax paid by one on one's income is allowed as a deduction in determining the income for the purposes of taxation.

(l) We would have answered the question posed for our consideration by following the decision of this Court in S. Inder Singh Gill (supra). However, we notice that the decision of this Court in S. Inder Singh Gill (supra) was rendered under the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 and not under the Act. We further note that just as Section 40(a)(ii) of the Act does not allow deduction on tax paid on profit and/or gain of business. The Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 Act also contains a similar provision in Section 10(4) thereof. However, the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 contains no definition of "tax" as provided in 2(43) of the Act. Consequently, the tax paid on income/profits and gains of business/profession anywhere in the world would not be allowed as deduction for determining the profits/gains of the business under Section 10(4) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922. Therefore, on the state of the statutory provisions as found in the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 the decision of this Court in S. Inder Singh Gill (supra) would be unexceptionable. However, the ratio of the aforesaid decision in S. Inder Singh Gill (supra) cannot be applied to the present facts in view of the fact that the Act defines "tax" as income tax chargeable under the provisions of this Act. Thus, by definition, the tax which is payable under the Act alone on the profits and

(m) It therefore, follows that the tax which has been paid abroad would not be covered with in the meaning of Section 40(a) (ii) of the Act in view of the definition of the word 'tax' in Section 2(43) of the Act. To be covered by Section 40(a)(ii) of the Act, it has to be payable under the Act. We are conscious of the fact that Section 2 of the Act, while defining the various terms used in the Act, qualifies it by preceding the definition with the word "In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires" the meaning of the word 'tax' as found in Section 2(43) of the Act would apply wherever it occurs in the Act. It is not even urged by the Revenue that the context of Section 40(a)(ii) of the Act would require it to mean tax paid anywhere in the world and not only tax payable/ paid under the Act.

(n) However, to the extent tax is paid abroad, the Explanation to Section 40(a)(ii) of the Act provides/clarifies that whenever an Assessee is otherwise entitled to the benefit of double income tax relief under Sections 90 or 91 of the Act, then the tax paid abroad would be governed by Section 40(a)(ii) of the Act. The occasion to insert the Explanation to Section 40(a)(ii) of the Act arose as Assessee was claiming to be entitled to obtain necessary credit to the extent of the tax paid abroad under Sections 90 or 91 of the Act and also claim the benefit of tax paid abroad as expenditure on account of not being covered by Section 40(a)(ii) of the Act. This is evident from the Explanatory notes to the Finance Act, 2006 as recorded in Circular No.14 of 2006 dated 28th December, 2006 issued by the CBDT. The above circular inter alia, records the fact that some of the assessee who are eligible for credit against the tax payable in India on the global income to the extent the tax has been paid outside India under Sections 90 or 91 of the Act, were also claiming deduction of the tax paid abroad as it was not tax under the Act. In view of the above, Explanation inserted in 2006 to Section 40(a)(ii) of the Act, would require in the context thereof that the definition of the word "tax" under the Act to mean also the tax which is eligible to the benefit of Sections 90 and 91 of the Act. However, this departure from the meaning of the word "tax" as defined in the Act is only restricted to the above and gives no license to widen the meaning of the word "tax" as defined in the Act to include all taxes on income/profits paid abroad.

(o) Therefore, on the Explanation being inserted in Section 40(a)(ii) of the Act, the tax paid in Saudi Arabia on income which has accrued and/or arisen in India is not eligible to deduction under Section 91 of the Act. Therefore, not hit by Section 40(a)(ii) of the Act. Section 91 of the Act, itself excludes income which is deemed to accrue or arise in India. Thus, the benefit of the Explanation would now be available and on application of real income theory, the quantum of tax paid in Saudi Arabia, attributable to income arising or accruing in India would be reduced for the purposes of computing the income on which tax is payable in India.

IT(TP)A No.99/Bang/2014, IT(TP)A NO.398/Bang/2015, IT(TP)A No.222/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A Nos.492 & 2851/Bamg/2017 & IT(TP)A No.3115 of 2018 M/s. Wipro Limited, Bangalore Page 14 of 43 (p) It is not disputed before us that some part of the income on which the tax has been paid abroad is on the income accrued or arisen in India. Therefore, to the extent, the tax is paid abroad on income which has accrued and/or arisen in India, the benefit of Section 91 of the Act is not available. In such a case, an Assessee such as the applicant assessee is entitled to a deduction under Section 40(a)(ii) of the Act. This is so as it is a tax which has been paid abroad for the purpose of arriving global income on which the tax payable in India. Therefore, to the extent the payment of tax in Saudi Arabia on income which has arisen/accrued in India has to be considered in the nature of expenditure incurred or arisen to earn income and not hit by the provisions of Section 40(a)(ii) of the Act.

(q) The Explanation to Section 40(a)(ii) of the Act was inserted into the Act by Finance Act, 2006. However, the use of the words "for removal of doubts" it is hereby declared "...." in the Explanation inserted in Section 40(a)(ii) of the Act, makes it clear that it is declaratory in nature and would have retrospective effect. This is not even disputed by the Revenue before us as the issue of the nature of such declaratory statutes stands considered by the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Vatika Township (P) Ltd. [2014] 367 ITR 466/227 Taxman 121/49 taxmann.com 249 and CIT v. Gold Coin Health Foods (P.) Ltd. [2008] 304 ITR 308/172 Taxman 386 (SC).

(r) In the above facts and circumstances, question (iii)(a) is answered in the negative i.e. against the Revenue and in favour of the applicant assessee. Question (iii)(b) is answered in the negative i.e. against the Revenue and in favour of the applicant assessee.”

Accordingly, we direct the AO to allow the foreign tax paid by the assessee, to the extent not allowed as tax credit u/s 90 &91 of the Act, as deduction from the business income of the assessee.”

2.1 Further, for the assessment year 2016-17 the Tribunal in IT(TP)A No.370/Bang/2021 vide order dated 14.6.2023 held as under: “43. Ground No. 16 to 16.3 relates to the claim of foreign tax credit and allowability of State Taxes paid. The contentions raised by the assessee in this year is two-fold. The first contention relates to the allowability of quantum of foreign tax credit. The second contention is that the foreign tax & State Taxes paid, if not fully allowed, then the difference amount should be allowed as business expenditure. A similar issue has been decided by the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the AY 2015-16 which is as under:- “18.1 With regard to the first contention, we notice that an identical issue was examined by the co-ordinate bench in the assessee’s own case

IT(TP)A No.99/Bang/2014, IT(TP)A NO.398/Bang/2015, IT(TP)A No.222/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A Nos.492 & 2851/Bamg/2017 & IT(TP)A No.3115 of 2018 M/s. Wipro Limited, Bangalore Page 15 of 43 in AY 2009-10 to 2014-15 in respect of tax credit and it was decided as under:- “9.10 We notice that the issue relating to foreign tax credit has been examined in detail for Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the assessee’s own case. For the sake of convenience, we extract below the relevant observations made by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka on this issue. 37. It is in this background, when we notice section 90 of the Act—relief from double taxation is granted in the following circumstances. Firstly, section 90(1)(b) of the Act speaks about avoidance of double taxation, i.e., the Central Government may enter into an agreement with the Government of any country for the avoidance of double taxation of income under this Act and under the corresponding law in force in other country, i.e., when tax is payable on income under this Act as well as under the corresponding law in that country they could agree to tax in one country. This happens even before payment of any tax. By virtue of such agreement, tax is paid only in one country, that is how the benefit of double taxation relief by way of avoidance is granted to the assessee in both the countries. 38. Secondly, under section 90(1)(a)(i) of the Act, once such assessee has paid Income-tax, under the Act as well as the tax in the other country, by such agreement, relief could be given by giving credit of the tax paid in the foreign country to the assessee in India. In cases covered under this provision the assessee pays tax in both the jurisdictions. After payment of such tax, he is entitled to double taxation relief by way of credit in respect of the tax paid in the foreign jurisdiction. 39. Thirdly, in cases covered under section 90(1)(a)(ii) of the Act it is not a case of the income being subjected to tax or the assessee has paid tax on the income. This applies to a case where the income of the assessee is chargeable under this Act as well as in the corresponding law in force in the other country. Though the Income-tax is chargeable under the Act, it is open to Parliament to grant exemptions under the Act from payment of tax for any specified period. Normally it is done as an incentive to the assessee to carry on manufacturing activities or in providing the services. Though the Central Government may extend the said benefit to the assessee in this country, by negotiations with the other countries, they could also be requested to extend the same benefit. If the contracting country agrees to extend the said benefit, then the assessee gets the relief. In another scenario, though the said income is exempt in this country, by virtue of the agreement, the amount of tax paid in the other country could be given credit to the assessee. Thus for

IT(TP)A No.99/Bang/2014, IT(TP)A NO.398/Bang/2015, IT(TP)A No.222/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A Nos.492 & 2851/Bamg/2017 & IT(TP)A No.3115 of 2018 M/s. Wipro Limited, Bangalore Page 16 of 43 the payment of Income-tax in the foreign jurisdiction, the assessee gets the benefit of its credit in this country. 40. However, if the contracting country is not agreeable to extend the said benefits, then in terms of the agreement and probably in terms of the exemption granted, the assessee would be entitled to benefit only in this country on account of the exemption and the benefit in the other country is not extended. Thus when exemption is granted in respect of the income chargeable to tax under this Act in respect of which no benefit is granted in the corresponding country the assessee gets no benefit. However, if the benefit is extended to a portion of the income say for example 90 per cent. and 10 per cent. is subjected to tax then to that extent the assessee would be entitled to benefit of tax credit as he has paid tax in the foreign jurisdiction as per section 90(1)(a)(i) of the Act. 41. In this connection, it is contended on behalf of the Revenue that if the income is chargeable to tax in India, then only the assessee can have the benefit of tax credit in respect of the tax paid in foreign jurisdiction. In respect of exemption under section 10A, the income derived is not included in the total income. It is not charged to Income-tax. Therefore, section 90 of the Act has no application at all. ………. 52. Section 10A(1) speaks of "deduction". The deduction is of profits and gains for a period of ten consecutive assessment years. The said deduction is from the total income of the assessee. Therefore, the total income before allowing the said deduction includes the profits and gains from the business referred to in section 10A(1). Section 5 of the Act explains the scope of total income to mean all income from whatsoever source derived. Section 4 of the Act charges this total income. However, section 10A(1) provides that, subject to the provisions of the said section , profits and gains derived by an undertaking referred to in that section shall be allowed as deduction from the total income of the assessee. Therefore, by virtue of the aforesaid statutory provision namely section 10A of the Act, the income of the asses-see from exports in respect of the said unit is exempted from payment of Income-tax. The very fact that it is exempted from payment of tax means but for that exemption such income is chargeable to tax. This relief under section 10A is in the nature of exemption although termed as deduction. But for this exemption, the said income namely profits and gains derived by an undertaking, is chargeable to tax under the Act. The said exemption is only for a period of ten years. After the expiry of the said ten years the said income is taxable. When such exemption is given under the Act, but the said income is taxed in foreign jurisdiction, there is no relief to the assessee at all. Therefore, to promote mutual economic relations, trade and investment,

IT(TP)A No.99/Bang/2014, IT(TP)A NO.398/Bang/2015, IT(TP)A No.222/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A Nos.492 & 2851/Bamg/2017 & IT(TP)A No.3115 of 2018 M/s. Wipro Limited, Bangalore Page 17 of 43 the Act was amended by way of the Finance Act, 2003 which came into force from April 1, 2004. By insertion of a new clause (ii) in sub-section (1)(a) of section 90 the Central Government has been vested with the power to enter into an agreement with the Government of any country outside India for the granting of relief in respect of Income-tax chargeable under the Income-tax Act or under the corresponding law in force in that country, to promote mutual economic relations, trade and investment. Therefore, the statute by itself is not granting any relief. But, by virtue of the statute, if an agreement is entered into providing for such relief, then the assessee would be entitled to such relief. ………………… 56. Therefore, it follows that the income under section 10A is chargeable to tax under section 4 and is includible in the total income under section 5, but no tax is charged because of the exemption given under section 10A only for a period of 10 years. Merely because the exemption has been granted in respect of the taxability of the said source of income, it cannot be postulated that the assessee is not liable to tax. The said exemption granted under the statute has the effect of suspending the collection of Income-tax for a period of 10 years. It does not make the said income not leviable to Income-tax. The said exemption granted under the statute stands revoked after a period of 10 years. Therefore, the case falls under section 90(1)(a)(ii). 57. In the background of this legal position, we have to look into the Double Taxation Agreements entered into between India and United States, Canada. (1) Indo-US Agreement : 58. Article 25 of the Indo-US Double Taxation Agreement deals with relief from double taxation. Clause 2(a) is the relevant provision. It reads as under (see [1991]187 ITR (St.) 102, 124) : "2(a) Where a resident of India derives income which, in accordance with the provisions of this Convention, may be taxed in the United States, India shall allow as a deduction from the tax on the income of that resident an amount equal to the Income-tax paid in the United States, whether directly or by deduction. Such deduction shall not, however, exceed that part of the Income-tax (as computed before the deduction is given) which is attributable to the income which may be taxed in the United States." 59. A perusal of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that if a resident Indian derives income, which may be taxed in the United States, India shall allow as a deduction from the tax on the income of the resident, amount equal to the Income-tax paid in the United States of America, whether directly or by deduction. The conditions mandated in the treaty is that if any "income derived" and "tax paid in the United

IT(TP)A No.99/Bang/2014, IT(TP)A NO.398/Bang/2015, IT(TP)A No.222/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A Nos.492 & 2851/Bamg/2017 & IT(TP)A No.3115 of 2018 M/s. Wipro Limited, Bangalore Page 18 of 43 States of America on such income", then tax relief/credit shall be granted in India on such tax paid in the United States of America. The said provision does not speak of any Income-tax being paid by the resident Indian under the Income-tax Act as a condition precedent for claiming the said benefit. Where the Indian resident pays no tax on such income derived, whereas the said income is taxed in the United States, India shall allow as a deduction from the tax on the income of that resident an amount equal to the Income-tax paid in the United States. Therefore, this provision is in conformity with section 90(1)(a)(ii) of the Act, i.e., the Income-tax chargeable under the Income-tax Act and in the corresponding law in force in the United States of America. Therefore, it is not the requirement of law that the assessee, before he claims credit under the Indo-US convention or under this provision of Act should pay tax in India on such income. However, the said provision makes it clear that such deduction shall not, however, exceed that part of the Income- tax (as computed before the deduction is given) which is attributable to the income which is to be taxed in the United States. Therefore, an embargo is prescribed for giving such tax credit. In other words, the assessee is entitled to such tax credit only in respect of that income, which is taxed in the United States. This provision became necessary because the accounting year in India varies from the accounting year in America. The accounting year in India starts from 1st of April and closes on 31st of March of the succeeding year. Whereas in America, the 1st of January is the commencement of the assessment year and ends on 31st of December of the same year. Therefore, the income derived by an Indian resident, which falls within the total income of a particular financial year when it is taxed in the United States, falls within two years in India. Therefore, while claiming credit in India, the assessee would be entitled to only the tax paid for that relevant financial year in America, i.e., the income attributable to that year in America. In other words, the Income- tax paid in the same calendar year in the United States of America is to be accounted for two financial years in India. Of course, this exercise should be done by the assessing authority on the basis of the material to be produced by the assessee. (2) Indo-Canada agreement : 60. In so far as the Indo-Canada Double Taxation Agreement is concerned, article 23 deals with elimination of double taxation. It provides that the laws in force in either of the Contracting States will continue to govern the taxation of income in the respective Contracting States except where provisions to the contrary are made in this agreement. In the case of India, double taxation should be eliminated as follows (see [1998] 229 ITR (St.) 44, 64): "3(a) The amount of Canadian tax paid, under the laws of Canada and in accordance with the provisions of the agreement, whether directly or by deduction, by a resident of India, in respect of income from sources

IT(TP)A No.99/Bang/2014, IT(TP)A NO.398/Bang/2015, IT(TP)A No.222/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A Nos.492 & 2851/Bamg/2017 & IT(TP)A No.3115 of 2018 M/s. Wipro Limited, Bangalore Page 19 of 43 within Canada which has been subjected to tax both in India and Canada shall be allowed as a credit against the Indian tax payable in respect of such income but in an amount not exceeding that proportion of Indian tax, which such income bears to the entire income chargeable to Indian tax." 61. A reading of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that the benefit of article 23 would be available to an assessee in India only in respect of the income from sources within Canada, which has been subjected to tax both in India and Canada, which forms part of the total income of the assessee and has suffered tax in India under the Income- tax Act and has suffered tax in Canada also, i.e., assessee has paid tax both in India as well as in Canada on the same income. Then the agreement provides the tax paid in Canada shall be allowed as a credit against the Indian tax payable in respect of such income. However, the said benefit is confined only to the extent of an amount not exceeding that proportion of Indian tax, which such income bears to the entire income chargeable to Indian tax. In other words if the Income-tax paid in India is less than the Income-tax paid in Canada, the assessee would be entitled to relief only to the extent of tax paid in India and not to the extent of tax paid in Canada. Therefore, this clause is in conformity with section 90(1)(a)(i) of the Act. As a corollary if the assessee is exempted from payment of tax in India, then if the same income is subjected to tax in Canada, according to the treaty, there is no double taxation. Therefore, the benefit of this treaty is not available to the Indian assessee. 62. It is submitted on behalf of the assessee that by virtue of the formulae prescribed under section 10A(4), entire export profits had not got exempted under section 10A, residuary surplus being subjected to tax both in India and Canada. This residuary surplus could qualify for tax credit as it is subjected to tax in both the countries. 63. As is clear from the aforesaid clause in the Indo-Canadian agreement if the income from source within Canada, is lower, has been subjected to tax both in India and Canada then, the tax paid in Canada shall be allowed as a credit against the Indian tax paid in respect of such income. If the entire income assessed by the assessee under section 10A is exempted in India, then, the aforesaid clause does not confer any benefit on the assessee. However, notwithstanding the aforesaid provision, if any portion of the income falling under section 10A is subjected to tax then, by virtue of aforesaid provision, the tax paid in Canada corresponding to the income subjected to tax in India, the assessee would be entitled to credit of the tax paid in Canada. However, this exercise has to be done by the assessing authority on the basis of materials to be produced by the assessee and after giving effect to the formulae prescribed under section 10A(4) of the Act. (3) No agreement with states :

IT(TP)A No.99/Bang/2014, IT(TP)A NO.398/Bang/2015, IT(TP)A No.222/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A Nos.492 & 2851/Bamg/2017 & IT(TP)A No.3115 of 2018 M/s. Wipro Limited, Bangalore Page 20 of 43 64. Whether the assessee is entitled to the aforesaid benefit when India has no agreement with the States where tax is levied on the income of the assessee. 65. Section 91 of the Act specifically deals with the said question. The afore said section reads as under : "91. Countries with which no agreement exists.—(1) If any person who is resident in India in any previous year proves that, in respect of his income which accrued or arose during that previous year outside India (and which is not deemed to accrue or arise in India), he has paid in any country with which there is no agreement under section 90 for the relief or avoidance of double taxation, Income-tax, by deduction or otherwise, under the law in force in that country, he shall be entitled to the deduction from the Indian Income-tax payable by him of a sum calculated on such doubly taxed income at the Indian rate of tax or the rate of tax of the said country whichever is the lower, or at the Indian rate of tax if both the rates are equal . . . (iv) the expression 'Income-tax' in relation to any country includes any excess profits tax or business profits tax charged on the profits by the Government of any part of that country or a local authority in that country." 66. The said provision provides for deduction of the tax paid in any country from the Indian Income-tax payable by him of a sum calculated on such doubly taxed income even though there is no agreement under section 90 for the relief or avoidance of double taxation. Explanation (iv) defines the expression Incometax in relation to any country includes any excess profit tax or business profits tax charged on the profits by the Government of any part of that country or a local authority in that country. Therefore the intention of Parliament is very clear. The Incometax in relation to any country includes Income-tax paid in any part of the country or a local authority. It applies to cases where in a federal structure a citizen is made to pay federal Income-tax and also the State income tax. The Income-tax in relation to any country includes Income- tax paid not only to the Federal Government of that country, but also any Income-tax charged by any part of that country meaning a State or a local authority, and the assessee would be entitled to the relief of double taxation benefit with respect to the latter payment also. Therefore, even in the absence of an agreement under section 90 of the Act, by virtue of the statutory provision, the benefit conferred under section 91 of the Act is extended to the Income-tax paid in foreign jurisdictions. India has entered into an agreement with the federal country and not with any State within that country. In order to extend the benefit of this, relief or avoidance of double taxation, the aforesaid Explanation explicitly makes it clear that Income-tax in relation to any country includes the Income- tax paid to the Government of any part of that country or a local authority in that country. Therefore, even though, India has not entered into any

IT(TP)A No.99/Bang/2014, IT(TP)A NO.398/Bang/2015, IT(TP)A No.222/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A Nos.492 & 2851/Bamg/2017 & IT(TP)A No.3115 of 2018 M/s. Wipro Limited, Bangalore Page 21 of 43 agreement with the State of a country and if the assessee has paid Income-tax to that State, the Income-tax paid in relation to that State is also eligible for being given credit to the assessee in India. Therefore, the argument that in the absence of an agreement between India and the State, the benefit of section 90 is not available to the assessee is ex-facie illegal and requires to be set aside. We notice that the Hon’ble High Court has accepted all the contentions of the assessee on various aspects discussed above. 9.11 We are also of the view that the expressions used in sec. 90(1)(a)(i) and (ii) and in sec.91 would also merit attention in this regard. Section 90(1)(a)(i) uses the expression “income on which have been paid both income tax….”. Section 91(1) uses the expression “If any person who is resident in India in any previous year proves that in respect of his income which accrued or arose during the previous year outside India (and which is not deemed to accrue or arise in India), he has paid in any Country with which there is no agreement under section 90 for the relief or avoidance of double taxation, income tax, by deduction or otherwise….. It can be noticed that, “payment of tax” is mentioned both in sec.90(1)(a)(i) and sec. 91. However, section 90(1)(a)(ii) uses the expression “income tax chargeable under this Act and under the Corresponding law in force in that Country…..” Thus, it can be noticed that the provisions of sec.90(1)(a)(i) and sec.91(1) refers to actual payment made in the foreign Country and the provisions of sec.90(1)(a)(ii) refers to “income tax chargeable under this Act and under the corresponding law in force in that Country”, i.e., there is no reference to actual payment of tax. 9.12 Accordingly, following the binding decision of High Court, we set aside the order passed by A.O. on this issue and direct him to allow foreign taxes credit claimed by the assessee in terms of decision rendered by Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka referred above.” 18.2 Following the above said decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional Karnataka High Court, we set aside the order passed by AO on this issue and direct him to allow foreign tax credit claimed by the assessee in terms of the decision rendered by Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka referred above. 18.3 The second contention of the assessee is that the foreign tax paid by the assessee, to the extent not given credit, should be allowed as business expenditure. The submission made by the assessee in this regard are extracted below:- “FTC to be allowed as Business expense: If relief from double taxation is denied for the reason that the income-tax paid or deducted in any foreign country is not eligible for relief u/s 90 or

IT(TP)A No.99/Bang/2014, IT(TP)A NO.398/Bang/2015, IT(TP)A No.222/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A Nos.492 & 2851/Bamg/2017 & IT(TP)A No.3115 of 2018 M/s. Wipro Limited, Bangalore Page 22 of 43 u/s 91, such tax paid of Rs. 117.32 Crores is deductible u/s 37(1) of the Act or allowable as a loss u/s 28 and such unrelieved foreign taxes are not covered by the restriction in Section 40(a)(ii) of the Act. But for the restriction imposed by clause (ii) of section 40a, income-taxes paid or deducted in foreign countries by the assessee-company is an expenditure laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business carried on by the assessee outside India and the same is deductible u/s 37 of the Act. In any case, it is a loss incurred by the assesse-company in carrying on business outside India and such tax is allowable u/s 28 of the Act. A plain reading of the aforesaid provision makes it abundantly clear that foreign taxes paid on profits or gains is not deductible only to the extent relief is eligible u/s 90 or deduction is eligible u/s 91. To the extent relief u/s 90 or deduction u/s 91 is denied as ineligible, the company is eligible for deduction u/s 37 or as a loss u/s 28 of the Act. Further, we wish to submit that the said amount shall also be allowed as a deduction from the book profits as “taxes levied under any Act other than Income Tax Act” is not covered in the inclusion given in Explanation – 2 u/s 115JB. We wish to reproduce the definition of income tax as provided in Explanation – 2: « Explanation 2.—For the purposes of clause (a) of Explanation 1, the amount of income-tax shall include— (i) any tax on distributed profits under section 115-O or on distributed income under section 115R; (ii) any interest charged under this Act; (iii) surcharge, if any, as levied by the Central Acts from time to time; (iv) Education Cess on income-tax, if any, as levied by the Central Acts from time to time; and (v) Secondary and Higher Education Cess on income-tax, if any, as levied by the Central Acts from time to time.] Further, it is submitted that FTC claim for Australia and Oman for the current assessment year includes the additional liability arising during the financial year 2017-18 for an amount of AUD 27,69,773 and 17,775 OMR respectively. Based on the above, we request your goodself to allow full credit based on DTAA or the proportionate foreign tax credit on profits which are taxed in the eligible units or allow deduction u/s 37 or as a loss u/s 28, as these profits have been subject to double taxation. Further, we request your goodself to allow the credit for the additional liability arising in Australia over above the liability in the branch tax return 18.4 We notice that the above said claim of the assessee finds support from the decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Reliance Infrastructure Ltd vs. CIT (2016)(390 ITR 271)(Bom). The relevant discussions made by Hon’ble Bombay High Court are extracted below:-

IT(TP)A No.99/Bang/2014, IT(TP)A NO.398/Bang/2015, IT(TP)A No.222/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A Nos.492 & 2851/Bamg/2017 & IT(TP)A No.3115 of 2018 M/s. Wipro Limited, Bangalore Page 23 of 43 “(j) This Court in S. Inder Singh Gill (supra) was required to answer the question whether for the purpose of computing total world income of the assessee as defined in Section 2(15) of the I. T. Act, the income accruing in Uganda has to be reduced by the tax paid to the Uganda Government in respect of such income? The Court while answering the question in the negative observed that it is not aware of any commercial principle/practice which lays down that the tax paid by one on one's income is allowed as a deduction in determining the income for the purposes of taxation. (k) It is axiomatic that income tax is a charge on the profits/ income. The payment of income tax is not a payment made/incurred to earn profits and gains of business. Therefore, it cannot be allowed an as expenditure to determine the profits of the business. Taxes such as Excise Duty, Customs Duty, Octroi etc., are incurred for the purpose of doing business and earning profits and/or gains from business or profession. Therefore, such expenditure is allowable as a deduction to determine the profits of the business. It is only after deducting all expenses incurred for the purpose of business from the total receipts that profits and/or gains of business/ profession are determined. It is this determined profits or gains of business/profession which are subject to tax as income tax under the Act. The main part of Section 40(a)(ii) of the Act does not allow deduction in computing the income i.e. profits and gains of business chargeable to tax to the extent, the tax is levied/ paid on the profits/ gains of business. Therefore, it was on the aforesaid general principle, universally accepted, that this Court answered the question posed to it in S. Inder Singh Gill (supra) in favour of the Revenue. (l) We would have answered the question posed for our consideration by following the decision of this Court in S. Inder Singh Gill (supra). However, we notice that the decision of this Court in S. Inder Singh Gill (supra) was rendered under the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 and not under the Act. We further note that just as Section 40(a)(ii) of the Act does not allow deduction on tax paid on profit and/or gain of business. The Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 Act also contains a similar provision in Section 10(4) thereof. However, the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 contains no definition of "tax" as provided in 2(43) of the Act. Consequently, the tax paid on income/profits and gains of business/profession anywhere in the world would not be allowed as deduction for determining the profits/gains of the business under Section 10(4) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922. Therefore, on the state of the statutory provisions as found in the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 the decision of this Court in S. Inder Singh Gill (supra) would be unexceptionable. However, the ratio of the aforesaid decision in S. Inder Singh Gill (supra) cannot be applied to the present facts in view of the fact that the Act defines "tax" as income tax chargeable under the provisions of this Act. Thus, by definition, the tax which is payable under

IT(TP)A No.99/Bang/2014, IT(TP)A NO.398/Bang/2015, IT(TP)A No.222/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A Nos.492 & 2851/Bamg/2017 & IT(TP)A No.3115 of 2018 M/s. Wipro Limited, Bangalore Page 24 of 43 the Act alone on the profits and gains of business are not allowed to be deducted notwithstanding Sections 30 to 38 of the Act. (m) It therefore, follows that the tax which has been paid abroad would not be covered within the meaning of Section 40(a) (ii) of the Act in view of the definition of the word 'tax' in Section 2(43) of the Act. To be covered by Section 40(a)(ii) of the Act, it has to be payable under the Act. We are conscious of the fact that Section 2 of the Act, while defining the various terms used in the Act, qualifies it by preceding the definition with the word "In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires" the meaning of the word 'tax' as found in Section 2(43) of the Act would apply wherever it occurs in the Act. It is not even urged by the Revenue that the context of Section 40(a)(ii) of the Act would require it to mean tax paid anywhere in the world and not only tax payable/ paid under the Act. (n) However, to the extent tax is paid abroad, the Explanation to Section 40(a)(ii) of the Act provides/clarifies that whenever an Assessee is otherwise entitled to the benefit of double income tax relief under Sections 90 or 91 of the Act, then the tax paid abroad would be governed by Section 40(a)(ii) of the Act. The occasion to insert the Explanation to Section 40(a)(ii) of the Act arose as Assessee was claiming to be entitled to obtain necessary credit to the extent of the tax paid abroad under Sections 90 or 91 of the Act and also claim the benefit of tax paid abroad as expenditure on account of not being covered by Section 40(a)(ii) of the Act. This is evident from the Explanatory notes to the Finance Act, 2006 as recorded in Circular No.14 of 2006 dated 28th December, 2006 issued by the CBDT. The above circular inter alia, records the fact that some of the assessee who are eligible for credit against the tax payable in India on the global income to the extent the tax has been paid outside India under Sections 90 or 91 of the Act, were also claiming deduction of the tax paid abroad as it was not tax under the Act. In view of the above, Explanation inserted in 2006 to Section 40(a)(ii) of the Act, would require in the context thereof that the definition of the word "tax" under the Act to mean also the tax which is eligible to the benefit of Sections 90 and 91 of the Act. However, this departure from the meaning of the word "tax" as defined in the Act is only restricted to the above and gives no license to widen the meaning of the word "tax" as defined in the Act to include all taxes on income/profits paid abroad. (o) Therefore, on the Explanation being inserted in Section 40(a)(ii) of the Act, the tax paid in Saudi Arabia on income which has accrued and/or arisen in India is not eligible to deduction under Section 91 of the Act. Therefore, not hit by Section 40(a)(ii) of the Act. Section 91 of the Act, itself excludes income which is deemed to accrue or arise in India. Thus, the benefit of the Explanation would now be available and on

IT(TP)A No.99/Bang/2014, IT(TP)A NO.398/Bang/2015, IT(TP)A No.222/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A Nos.492 & 2851/Bamg/2017 & IT(TP)A No.3115 of 2018 M/s. Wipro Limited, Bangalore Page 25 of 43 application of real income theory, the quantum of tax paid in Saudi Arabia, attributable to income arising or accruing in India would be reduced for the purposes of computing the income on which tax is payable in India. (p) It is not disputed before us that some part of the income on which the tax has been paid abroad is on the income accrued or arisen in India. Therefore, to the extent, the tax is paid abroad on income which has accrued and/or arisen in India, the benefit of Section 91 of the Act is not available. In such a case, an Assessee such as the applicant assessee is entitled to a deduction under Section 40(a)(ii) of the Act. This is so as it is a tax which has been paid abroad for the purpose of arriving global income on which the tax payable in India. Therefore, to the extent the payment of tax in Saudi Arabia on income which has arisen/accrued in India has to be considered in the nature of expenditure incurred or arisen to earn income and not hit by the provisions of Section 40(a)(ii) of the Act. (q) The Explanation to Section 40(a)(ii) of the Act was inserted into the Act by Finance Act, 2006. However, the use of the words "for removal of doubts" it is hereby declared "...." in the Explanation inserted in Section 40(a)(ii) of the Act, makes it clear that it is declaratory in nature and would have retrospective effect. This is not even disputed by the Revenue before us as the issue of the nature of such declaratory statutes stands considered by the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Vatika Township (P) Ltd. [2014] 367 ITR 466/227 Taxman 121/49 taxmann.com 249 and CIT v. Gold Coin Health Foods (P.) Ltd. [2008] 304 ITR 308/172 Taxman 386 (SC). (r) In the above facts and circumstances, question (iii)(a) is answered in the negative i.e. against the Revenue and in favour of the applicant assessee. Question (iii)(b) is answered in the negative i.e. against the Revenue and in favour of the applicant assessee.” Accordingly, we direct the AO to allow the foreign tax paid by the assessee, to the extent not allowed as tax credit u/s 90 &91 of the Act, as deduction from the business income of the assessee.” 2.2 Further, for the assessment year 2017-18, the Tribunal vide order in IT(TP)A No.969/Bang/2022 dated 16.8.2023 held as under: “20.2 With regard to ground no.15 the ld A.R. submitted that in paras 43-44; pg nos 85-99, order dated 23rd May 2022 for AY 2015-16 was followed, where it was held that Foreign tax paid by the assessee, to the extent not allowed as tax credit u/s 90/91 of the Act, should be allowed as deduction from the business income.

20.3 The ld. D.R. relied on the order of ld. DRP.

IT(TP)A No.99/Bang/2014, IT(TP)A NO.398/Bang/2015, IT(TP)A No.222/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A Nos.492 & 2851/Bamg/2017 & IT(TP)A No.3115 of 2018 M/s. Wipro Limited, Bangalore Page 26 of 43 20.4 After hearing both the parties, we are of the opinion that this issue came for consideration in assessee’s own case in ITA No.370/Bang/2021 cited (supra), wherein the Tribunal held as under: 42. “Ground No. 16 to 16.3 relates to the claim of foreign tax credit and allowability of State Taxes paid. The contentions raised by the assessee in this year is two-fold. The first contention relates to the allowability of quantum of foreign tax credit. The second contention is that the foreign tax & State Taxes paid, if not fully allowed, then the difference amount should be allowed as business expenditure. A similar issue has been decided by the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the AY 2015-16 which is as under:-

“18.1 With regard to the first contention, we notice that an identical issue was examined by the co-ordinate bench in the assessee’s own case in AY 2009-10 to 2014-15 in respect of tax credit and it was decided as under:- “9.10 We notice that the issue relating to foreign tax credit has been examined in detail for Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the assessee’s own case. For the sake of convenience, we extract below the relevant observations made by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka on this issue. 37. It is in this background, when we notice section 90 of the Act— relief from double taxation is granted in the following circumstances. Firstly, section 90(1)(b) of the Act speaks about avoidance of double taxation, i.e., the Central Government may enter into an agreement with the Government of any country for the avoidance of double taxation of income under this Act and under the corresponding law in force in other country, i.e., when tax is payable on income under this Act as well as under the corresponding law in that country they could agree to tax in one country. This happens even before payment of any tax. By virtue of such agreement, tax is paid only in one country, that is how the benefit of double taxation relief by way of avoidance is granted to the assessee in both the countries. 38. Secondly, under section 90(1)(a)(i) of the Act, once such assessee has paid Income-tax, under the Act as well as the tax in the other country, by such agreement, relief could be given by giving credit of the tax paid in the foreign country to the assessee in India. In cases covered under this provision the assessee pays tax in both the jurisdictions. After payment of such tax, he is entitled to double taxation relief by way of credit in respect of the tax paid in the foreign jurisdiction. 39. Thirdly, in cases covered under section 90(1)(a)(ii) of the Act it is not a case of the income being subjected to tax or the assessee has paid tax on the income. This applies to a case where the income of the assessee is chargeable under this Act as well as in the corresponding law in force

IT(TP)A No.99/Bang/2014, IT(TP)A NO.398/Bang/2015, IT(TP)A No.222/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A Nos.492 & 2851/Bamg/2017 & IT(TP)A No.3115 of 2018 M/s. Wipro Limited, Bangalore Page 27 of 43 in the other country. Though the Income-tax is chargeable under the Act, it is open to Parliament to grant exemptions under the Act from payment of tax for any specified period. Normally it is done as an incentive to the assessee to carry on manufacturing activities or in providing the services. Though the Central Government may extend the said benefit to the assessee in this country, by negotiations with the other countries, they could also be requested to extend the same benefit. If the contracting country agrees to extend the said benefit, then the assessee gets the relief. In another scenario, though the said income is exempt in this country, by virtue of the agreement, the amount of tax paid in the other country could be given credit to the assessee. Thus for the payment of Income-tax in the foreign jurisdiction, the assessee gets the benefit of its credit in this country. 40. However, if the contracting country is not agreeable to extend the said benefits, then in terms of the agreement and probably in terms of the exemption granted, the assessee would be entitled to benefit only in this country on account of the exemption and the benefit in the other country is not extended. Thus when exemption is granted in respect of the income chargeable to tax under this Act in respect of which no benefit is granted in the corresponding country the assessee gets no benefit. However, if the benefit is extended to a portion of the income say for example 90 per cent. and 10 per cent. is subjected to tax then to that extent the assessee would be entitled to benefit of tax credit as he has paid tax in the foreign jurisdiction as per section 90(1)(a)(i) of the Act. 41. In this connection, it is contended on behalf of the Revenue that if the income is chargeable to tax in India, then only the assessee can have the benefit of tax credit in respect of the tax paid in foreign jurisdiction. In respect of exemption under section 10A, the income derived is not included in the total income. It is not charged to Income-tax. Therefore, section 90 of the Act has no application at all.

52.

IT(TP)A No.99/Bang/2014, IT(TP)A NO.398/Bang/2015, IT(TP)A No.222/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A Nos.492 & 2851/Bamg/2017 & IT(TP)A No.3115 of 2018 M/s. Wipro Limited, Bangalore Page 28 of 43 relief under section 10A is in the nature of exemption although termed as deduction. But for this exemption, the said income namely profits and gains derived by an undertaking, is chargeable to tax under the Act. The said exemption is only for a period of ten years. After the expiry of the said ten years the said income is taxable. When such exemption is given under the Act, but the said income is taxed in foreign jurisdiction, there is no relief to the assessee at all. Therefore, to promote mutual economic relations, trade and investment, the Act was amended by way of the Finance Act, 2003 which came into force from April 1, 2004. By insertion of a new clause (ii) in sub- section (1)(a) of section 90 the Central Government has been vested with the power to enter into an agreement with the Government of any country outside India for the granting of relief in respect of Income-tax chargeable under the Income-tax Act or under the corresponding law in force in that country, to promote mutual economic relations, trade and investment. Therefore, the statute by itself is not granting any relief. But, by virtue of the statute, if an agreement is entered into providing for such relief, then the assessee would be entitled to such relief.

56.

Therefore, it follows that the income under section 10A is chargeable to tax under section 4 and is includible in the total income under section 5, but no tax is charged because of the exemption given under section 10A only for a period of 10 years. Merely because the exemption has been granted in respect of the taxability of the said source of income, it cannot be postulated that the assessee is not liable to tax. The said exemption granted under the statute has the effect of suspending the collection of Income-tax for a period of 10 years. It does not make the said income not leviable to Income-tax. The said exemption granted under the statute stands revoked after a period of 10 years. Therefore, the case falls under section 90(1)(a)(ii). 57. In the background of this legal position, we have to look into the Double Taxation Agreements entered into between India and United States, Canada. (1) Indo-US Agreement : 58. Article 25 of the Indo-US Double Taxation Agreement deals with relief from double taxation. Clause 2(a) is the relevant provision. It reads as under (see [1991]187 ITR (St.) 102, 124) : "2(a) Where a resident of India derives income which, in accordance with the provisions of this Convention, may be taxed in the United States, India shall allow as a deduction from the tax on the income of that resident an amount equal to the Income-tax paid in the United States, whether directly or by deduction. Such deduction shall not, however, exceed that part of the Income-tax (as computed before the deduction is given) which is attributable to the income which may be taxed in the United States."

IT(TP)A No.99/Bang/2014, IT(TP)A NO.398/Bang/2015, IT(TP)A No.222/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A Nos.492 & 2851/Bamg/2017 & IT(TP)A No.3115 of 2018 M/s. Wipro Limited, Bangalore Page 29 of 43 59. A perusal of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that if a resident Indian derives income, which may be taxed in the United States, India shall allow as a deduction from the tax on the income of the resident, amount equal to the Income-tax paid in the United States of America, whether directly or by deduction. The conditions mandated in the treaty is that if any "income derived" and "tax paid in the United States of America on such income", then tax relief/credit shall be granted in India on such tax paid in the United States of America. The said provision does not speak of any Income-tax being paid by the resident Indian under the Income-tax Act as a condition precedent for claiming the said benefit. Where the Indian resident pays no tax on such income derived, whereas the said income is taxed in the United States, India shall allow as a deduction from the tax on the income of that resident an amount equal to the Income-tax paid in the United States. Therefore, this provision is in conformity with section 90(1)(a)(ii) of the Act, i.e., the Income-tax chargeable under the Income- tax Act and in the corresponding law in force in the United States of America. Therefore, it is not the requirement of law that the assessee, before he claims credit under the Indo-US convention or under this provision of Act should pay tax in India on such income. However, the said provision makes it clear that such deduction shall not, however, exceed that part of the Income-tax (as computed before the deduction is given) which is attributable to the income which is to be taxed in the United States. Therefore, an embargo is prescribed for giving such tax credit. In other words, the assessee is entitled to such tax credit only in respect of that income, which is taxed in the United States. This provision became necessary because the accounting year in India varies from the accounting year in America. The accounting year in India starts from 1st of April and closes on 31st of March of the succeeding year. Whereas in America, the 1st of January is the commencement of the assessment year and ends on 31st of December of the same year. Therefore, the income derived by an Indian resident, which falls within the total income of a particular financial year when it is taxed in the United States, falls within two years in India. Therefore, while claiming credit in India, the assessee would be entitled to only the tax paid for that relevant financial year in America, i.e., the income attributable to that year in America. In other words, the Income- tax paid in the same calendar year in the United States of America is to be accounted for two financial years in India. Of course, this exercise should be done by the assessing authority on the basis of the material to be produced by the assessee. (2) Indo-Canada agreement : 60. In so far as the Indo-Canada Double Taxation Agreement is concerned, article 23 deals with elimination of double taxation. It provides that the laws in force in either of the Contracting States will continue to govern the taxation of income in the respective Contracting States except where provisions to the contrary are made in this agreement. In the case of India,

IT(TP)A No.99/Bang/2014, IT(TP)A NO.398/Bang/2015, IT(TP)A No.222/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A Nos.492 & 2851/Bamg/2017 & IT(TP)A No.3115 of 2018 M/s. Wipro Limited, Bangalore Page 30 of 43 double taxation should be eliminated as follows (see [1998] 229 ITR (St.) 44, 64): "3(a) The amount of Canadian tax paid, under the laws of Canada and in accordance with the provisions of the agreement, whether directly or by deduction, by a resident of India, in respect of income from sources within Canada which has been subjected to tax both in India and Canada shall be allowed as a credit against the Indian tax payable in respect of such income but in an amount not exceeding that proportion of Indian tax, which such income bears to the entire income chargeable to Indian tax." 61. A reading of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that the benefit of article 23 would be available to an assessee in India only in respect of the income from sources within Canada, which has been subjected to tax both in India and Canada, which forms part of the total income of the assessee and has suffered tax in India under the Income-tax Act and has suffered tax in Canada also, i.e., assessee has paid tax both in India as well as in Canada on the same income. Then the agreement provides the tax paid in Canada shall be allowed as a credit against the Indian tax payable in respect of such income. However, the said benefit is confined only to the extent of an amount not exceeding that proportion of Indian tax, which such income bears to the entire income chargeable to Indian tax. In other words if the Income-tax paid in India is less than the Income-tax paid in Canada, the assessee would be entitled to relief only to the extent of tax paid in India and not to the extent of tax paid in Canada. Therefore, this clause is in conformity with section 90(1)(a)(i) of the Act. As a corollary if the assessee is exempted from payment of tax in India, then if the same income is subjected to tax in Canada, according to the treaty, there is no double taxation. Therefore, the benefit of this treaty is not available to the Indian assessee. 62. It is submitted on behalf of the assessee that by virtue of the formulae prescribed under section 10A(4), entire export profits had not got exempted under section 10A, residuary surplus being subjected to tax both in India and Canada. This residuary surplus could qualify for tax credit as it is subjected to tax in both the countries.

63.

As is clear from the aforesaid clause in the Indo-Canadian agreement if the income from source within Canada, is lower, has been subjected to tax both in India and Canada then, the tax paid in Canada shall be allowed as a credit against the Indian tax paid in respect of such income. If the entire income assessed by the assessee under section 10A is exempted in India, then, the aforesaid clause does not confer any benefit on the assessee. However, notwithstanding the aforesaid provision, if any portion of the income falling under section 10A is subjected to tax then, by virtue of aforesaid provision, the tax paid in Canada corresponding to the income subjected to tax in India, the assessee would be entitled to credit of the tax paid in Canada. However,

IT(TP)A No.99/Bang/2014, IT(TP)A NO.398/Bang/2015, IT(TP)A No.222/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A Nos.492 & 2851/Bamg/2017 & IT(TP)A No.3115 of 2018 M/s. Wipro Limited, Bangalore Page 31 of 43 this exercise has to be done by the assessing authority on the basis of materials to be produced by the assessee and after giving effect to the formulae prescribed under section 10A(4) of the Act. (3) No agreement with states : 64. Whether the assessee is entitled to the aforesaid benefit when India has no agreement with the States where tax is levied on the income of the assessee. 65. Section 91 of the Act specifically deals with the said question. The afore said section reads as under : "91. Countries with which no agreement exists.—(1) If any person who is resident in India in any previous year proves that, in respect of his income which accrued or arose during that previous year outside India (and which is not deemed to accrue or arise in India), he has paid in any country with which there is no agreement under section 90 for the relief or avoidance of double taxation, Income-tax, by deduction or otherwise, under the law in force in that country, he shall be entitled to the deduction from the Indian Income-tax payable by him of a sum calculated on such doubly taxed income at the Indian rate of tax or the rate of tax of the said country whichever is the lower, or at the Indian rate of tax if both the rates are equal . . . (iv) the expression 'Income-tax' in relation to any country includes any excess profits tax or business profits tax charged on the profits by the Government of any part of that country or a local authority in that country." 66. The said provision provides for deduction of the tax paid in any country from the Indian Income-tax payable by him of a sum calculated on such doubly taxed income even though there is no agreement under section 90 for the relief or avoidance of double taxation. Explanation (iv) defines the expression Income-tax in relation to any country includes any excess profit tax or business profits tax charged on the profits by the Government of any part of that country or a local authority in that country. Therefore the intention of Parliament is very clear. The Income-tax in relation to any country includes Income-tax paid in any part of the country or a local authority. It applies to cases where in a federal structure a citizen is made to pay federal Income-tax and also the State income tax. The Income-tax in relation to any country includes Income-tax paid not only to the Federal Government of that country, but also any Income-tax charged by any part of that country meaning a State or a local authority, and the assessee would be entitled to the relief of double taxation benefit with respect to the latter payment also. Therefore, even in the absence of an agreement under section 90 of the Act, by virtue of the statutory provision, the benefit conferred under section 91 of the Act is extended to the Income-tax paid in foreign jurisdictions. India has entered into an agreement with the federal

IT(TP)A No.99/Bang/2014, IT(TP)A NO.398/Bang/2015, IT(TP)A No.222/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A Nos.492 & 2851/Bamg/2017 & IT(TP)A No.3115 of 2018 M/s. Wipro Limited, Bangalore Page 32 of 43 country and not with any State within that country. In order to extend the benefit of this, relief or avoidance of double taxation, the aforesaid Explanation explicitly makes it clear that Income-tax in relation to any country includes the Income-tax paid to the Government of any part of that country or a local authority in that country. Therefore, even though, India has not entered into any agreement with the State of a country and if the assessee has paid Income-tax to that State, the Income-tax paid in relation to that State is also eligible for being given credit to the assessee in India. Therefore, the argument that in the absence of an agreement between India and the State, the benefit of section 90 is not available to the assessee is ex-facie illegal and requires to be set aside. We notice that the Hon’ble High Court has accepted all the contentions of the assessee on various aspects discussed above.

9.11We are also of the view that the expressions used in sec. 90(1)(a)(i) and (ii) and in sec.91 would also merit attention in this regard. Section 90(1)(a)(i) uses the expression “income on which have been paid both income tax....”. Section 91(1) uses the expression “If any person who is resident in India in any previous year proves that in respect of his income which accrued or arose during the previous year outside India (and which is not deemed to accrue or arise in India), he has paid in any Country with which there is no agreement under section 90 for the relief or avoidance of double taxation, income tax, by deduction or otherwise.....It can be noticed that, “payment of tax” is mentioned both in sec.90(1)(a)(i) and sec. 91. However, section 90(1)(a)(ii) uses the expression “income tax chargeable under this Act and under the Corresponding law in force in that Country.....” Thus, it can be noticed that the provisions of sec.90(1)(a)(i) and sec.91(1) refers to actual payment made in the foreign Country and the provisions of sec.90(1)(a)(ii) refers to “income tax chargeable under this Act and under the corresponding law in force in that Country”, i.e., there is no reference to actual payment of tax. 9.12Accordingly, following the binding decision of High Court, we set aside the order passed by A.O. on this issue and direct him to allow foreign taxes credit claimed by the assessee in terms of decision rendered by Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka referred above.” 18.2 Following the above said decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional Karnataka High Court, we set aside the order passed by AO on this issue and direct him to allow foreign tax credit claimed by the assessee in terms of the decision rendered by Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka referred above. 18.3 The second contention of the assessee is that the foreign tax paid by the assessee, to the extent not given credit, should be allowed as business expenditure. The submission made by the assessee in this regard are extracted below:-

IT(TP)A No.99/Bang/2014, IT(TP)A NO.398/Bang/2015, IT(TP)A No.222/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A Nos.492 & 2851/Bamg/2017 & IT(TP)A No.3115 of 2018 M/s. Wipro Limited, Bangalore Page 33 of 43 “FTC to be allowed as Business expense: If relief from double taxation is denied for the reason that the income-tax paid or deducted in any foreign country is not eligible for relief u/s 90 or u/s 91, such tax paid of Rs. 117.32 Crores is deductible u/s 37(1) of the Act or allowable as a loss u/s 28 and such unrelieved foreign taxes are not covered by the restriction in Section 40(a)(ii) of the Act. But for the restriction imposed by clause (ii) of section 40a, income-taxes paid or deducted in foreign countries by the assessee-company is an expenditure laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business carried on by the assessee outside India and the same is deductible u/s 37 of the Act. In any case, it is a loss incurred by the assesse-company in carrying on business outside India and such tax is allowable u/s 28 of the Act. A plain reading of the aforesaid provision makes it abundantly clear that foreign taxes paid on profits or gains is not deductible only to the extent relief is eligible u/s 90 or deduction is eligible u/s 91. To the extent relief u/s 90 or deduction u/s 91 is denied as ineligible, the company is eligible for deduction u/s 37 or as a loss u/s 28 of the Act. Further, we wish to submit that the said amount shall also be allowed as a deduction from the book profits as “taxes levied under any Act other than Income Tax Act” is not covered in the inclusion given in Explanation – 2 u/s 115JB. We wish to reproduce the definition of income tax as provided in Explanation – 2: « Explanation 2.—For the purposes of clause (a) of Explanation 1, the amount of income-tax shall include— (i) any tax on distributed profits under section 115-O or on distributed income under section 115R; (ii) any interest charged under this Act; (iii) surcharge, if any, as levied by the Central Acts from time to time; (iv) Education Cess on income-tax, if any, as levied by the Central Acts from time to time; and (v) Secondary and Higher Education Cess on income-tax, if any, as levied by the Central Acts from time to time.] Further, it is submitted that FTC claim for Australia and Oman for the current assessment year includes the additional liability arising during the financial year 2017-18 for an amount of AUD 27,69,773 and 17,775 OMR respectively. Based on the above, we request your goodself to allow full credit based on DTAA or the proportionate foreign tax credit on profits which are taxed in the eligible units or allow deduction u/s 37 or as a loss u/s 28, as these profits have been subject to double taxation. Further, we request your goodself to allow the credit for the additional liability arising in Australia over above the liability in the branch tax return 18.4 We notice that the above said claim of the assessee finds support from the decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Reliance Infrastructure Ltd vs. CIT (2016)(390 ITR 271)(Bom). The

IT(TP)A No.99/Bang/2014, IT(TP)A NO.398/Bang/2015, IT(TP)A No.222/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A Nos.492 & 2851/Bamg/2017 & IT(TP)A No.3115 of 2018 M/s. Wipro Limited, Bangalore Page 34 of 43 relevant discussions made by Hon’ble Bombay High Court are extracted below:- “(j) This Court in S. Inder Singh Gill (supra) was required to answer the question whether for the purpose of computing total world income of the assessee as defined in Section 2(15) of the I. T. Act, the income accruing in Uganda has to be reduced by the tax paid to the Uganda Government in respect of such income? The Court while answering the question in the negative observed that it is not aware of any commercial principle/practice which lays down that the tax paid by one on one's income is allowed as a deduction in determining the income for the purposes of taxation. (k) It is axiomatic that income tax is a charge on the profits/ income. The payment of income tax is not a payment made/incurred to earn profits and gains of business. Therefore, it cannot be allowed an as expenditure to determine the profits of the business. Taxes such as Excise Duty, Customs Duty, Octroi etc., are incurred for the purpose of doing business and earning profits and/or gains from business or profession. Therefore, such expenditure is allowable as a deduction to determine the profits of the business. It is only after deducting all expenses incurred for the purpose of business from the total receipts that profits and/or gains of business/ profession are determined. It is this determined profits or gains of business/profession which are subject to tax as income tax under the Act. The main part of Section 40(a)(ii) of the Act does not allow deduction in computing the income i.e. profits and gains of business chargeable to tax to the extent, the tax is levied/ paid on the profits/ gains of business. Therefore, it was on the aforesaid general principle, universally accepted, that this Court answered the question posed to it in S. Inder Singh Gill (supra) in favour of the Revenue.

IT(TP)A No.99/Bang/2014, IT(TP)A NO.398/Bang/2015, IT(TP)A No.222/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A Nos.492 & 2851/Bamg/2017 & IT(TP)A No.3115 of 2018 M/s. Wipro Limited, Bangalore Page 35 of 43 provisions of this Act. Thus, by definition, the tax which is payable under the Act alone on the profits and gains of business are not allowed to be deducted notwithstanding Sections 30 to 38 of the Act. (m) It therefore, follows that the tax which has been paid abroad would not be covered within the meaning of Section 40(a) (ii) of the Act in view of the definition of the word 'tax' in Section 2(43) of the Act. To be covered by Section 40(a)(ii) of the Act, it has to be payable under the Act. We are conscious of the fact that Section 2 of the Act, while defining the various terms used in the Act, qualifies it by preceding the definition with the word "In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires" the meaning of the word 'tax' as found in Section 2(43) of the Act would apply wherever it occurs in the Act. It is not even urged by the Revenue that the context of Section 40(a)(ii) of the Act would require it to mean tax paid anywhere in the world and not only tax payable/ paid under the Act. (n) However, to the extent tax is paid abroad, the Explanation to Section 40(a)(ii) of the Act provides/clarifies that whenever an Assessee is otherwise entitled to the benefit of double income tax relief under Sections 90 or 91 of the Act, then the tax paid abroad would be governed by Section 40(a)(ii) of the Act. The occasion to insert the Explanation to Section 40(a)(ii) of the Act arose as Assessee was claiming to be entitled to obtain necessary credit to the extent of the tax paid abroad under Sections 90 or 91 of the Act and also claim the benefit of tax paid abroad as expenditure on account of not being covered by Section 40(a)(ii) of the Act. This is evident from the Explanatory notes to the Finance Act, 2006 as recorded in Circular No.14 of 2006 dated 28th December, 2006 issued by the CBDT. The above circular inter alia, records the fact that some of the assessee who are eligible for credit against the tax payable in India on the global income to the extent the tax has been paid outside India under Sections 90 or 91 of the Act, were also claiming deduction of the tax paid abroad as it was not tax under the Act. In view of the above, Explanation inserted in 2006 to Section 40(a)(ii) of the Act, would require in the context thereof that the definition of the word "tax" under the Act to mean also the tax which is eligible to the benefit of Sections 90 and 91 of the Act. However, this departure from the meaning of the word "tax" as defined in the Act is only restricted to the above and gives no license to widen the meaning of the word "tax" as defined in the Act to include all taxes on income/profits paid abroad. (o) Therefore, on the Explanation being inserted in Section 40(a)(ii) of the Act, the tax paid in Saudi Arabia on income which has accrued and/or arisen in India is not eligible to deduction under Section 91 of the Act. Therefore, not hit by Section 40(a)(ii) of the Act. Section 91 of the Act, itself excludes income which is deemed to accrue or arise in India. Thus, the benefit of the Explanation would now be available and on application of real income theory, the quantum of tax paid in

IT(TP)A No.99/Bang/2014, IT(TP)A NO.398/Bang/2015, IT(TP)A No.222/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A Nos.492 & 2851/Bamg/2017 & IT(TP)A No.3115 of 2018 M/s. Wipro Limited, Bangalore Page 36 of 43 Saudi Arabia, attributable to income arising or accruing in India would be reduced for the purposes of computing the income on which tax is payable in India.

(p) It is not disputed before us that some part of the income on which the tax has been paid abroad is on the income accrued or arisen in India. Therefore, to the extent, the tax is paid abroad on income which has accrued and/or arisen in India, the benefit of Section 91 of the Act is not available. In such a case, an Assessee such as the applicant assessee is entitled to a deduction under Section 40(a)(ii) of the Act. This is so as it is a tax which has been paid abroad for the purpose of arriving global income on which the tax payable in India. Therefore, to the extent the payment of tax in Saudi Arabia on income which has arisen/accrued in India has to be considered in the nature of expenditure incurred or arisen to earn income and not hit by the provisions of Section 40(a)(ii) of the Act. (q) The Explanation to Section 40(a)(ii) of the Act was inserted into the Act by Finance Act, 2006. However, the use of the words "for removal of doubts" it is hereby declared "...." in the Explanation inserted in Section 40(a)(ii) of the Act, makes it clear that it is declaratory in nature and would have retrospective effect. This is not even disputed by the Revenue before us as the issue of the nature of such declaratory statutes stands considered by the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Vatika Township (P) Ltd. [2014] 367 ITR 466/227 Taxman 121/49 taxmann.com 249 and CIT v. Gold Coin Health Foods (P.) Ltd. [2008] 304 ITR 308/172 Taxman 386 (SC). (r) In the above facts and circumstances, question (iii)(a) is answered in the negative i.e. against the Revenue and in favour of the applicant assessee. Question (iii)(b) is answered in the negative i.e. against the Revenue and in favour of the applicant assessee.” Accordingly, we direct the AO to allow the foreign tax paid by the assessee, to the extent not allowed as tax credit u/s 90 &91 of the Act, as deduction from the business income of the assessee.” 44. Since this issue has been decided as stated above for the AY 2015-16 in assessee’s own case, accordingly, we direct the AO to allow the foreign tax & State Tax paid by the assessee, to the extent not allowed as tax credit u/s 90 & 91 of the Act, as deduction from the business income of the assessee from the respective units.”

20.5 In view of the above order of the Tribunal, this issue is remitted to AO/TPO to decide the assessee’s case in the light of above directions of the Tribunal.”

IT(TP)A No.99/Bang/2014, IT(TP)A NO.398/Bang/2015, IT(TP)A No.222/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A Nos.492 & 2851/Bamg/2017 & IT(TP)A No.3115 of 2018 M/s. Wipro Limited, Bangalore Page 37 of 43 2.3 Further, Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. CIT (390 ITR 271) decided the issue in favour of the assessee as follows: “4. Regarding question (iii) : (a) The applicant assessee claimed that it should be allowed a deduction of the tax paid in Saudi Arabia, if it is held that the benefit of Section 91 of the Act is not available. This deduction is claimed only to the extent tax has been paid in Saudi Arabia on the income which has accrued / arisen in India. This claim was made on the basis of Real Income Theory.

(b) The applicant assessee illustrated its claim by a hypothetical illustration, which is as under :- In respect of the project in Saudi Arabia, Income which is taxable is Rs.1000/-. The tax payable in Saudi Arabia is 10% of income. This amount of Rs.1000/- includes an amount of Rs.150/- which has accrued in India and, therefore, outside the scope of doubly taxed income for the benefit of Section 91 of the Act. (ii) Nevertheless, the assessee paid the tax on Rs.1,000/- in Saudi Arabia @ 10% i.e. Rs.100/-. The credit which would be given to the assessee under Section 91 of the Act is to extent of Rs.85/- i.e. doubly taxed income amounting to Rs.850/-. However, as no credit is given for the tax of Rs.15/- paid in Saudi Arabia on income which is accrued in India, the deduction of Rs.15/- should be given as an expenditure from the income of Rs.150/- which has accrued / arising of in India. (c) The aforesaid issue was not raised before the Assessing Officer nor decided by the &(A). However, before the Tribunal, the applicant urged that the CIT(A) ought to have held that in respect of such percentage of income which was deemed to accrue in India and on which the benefit of Section 91 of the Act is not available then, the tax paid in Saudi Arabia should be treated as an expenditure incurred in earning income which is deemed to have accrued / arisen in India and reduced therefrom. In fact, the applicant pointed out before the Tribunal that such a deduction was allowed for an earlier assessment year namely A.Y. 1979-80. The Tribunal by its order dated 11th November, 1996 negatived the (d) contention of the applicant. This was on two grounds, one this was not an issue raised before the CIT(A) and therefore could not be urged before the Tribunal and second the issue is covered by the decision of this Court in Inder Singh Gill v/s. CIT, 47 1TR 284. In the above case, this Court held that the tax paid by an assessee in a foreign country cannot be deducted in computing income under the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922. (e) Thereafter, the applicant-assessee moved the Tribunal and question No.3 as formulated herein above, has been posed to us for our opinion. It raises two issues. The first is claim for deduction of the tax paid in Saudi Arabia (on which no double

IT(TP)A No.99/Bang/2014, IT(TP)A NO.398/Bang/2015, IT(TP)A No.222/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A Nos.492 & 2851/Bamg/2017 & IT(TP)A No.3115 of 2018 M/s. Wipro Limited, Bangalore Page 38 of 43 income tax relief is available) to compute income under the Act. The second is the Tribunal erred in not following its order for A.Y. 1979-80. (f) Mr. Murlidhar, learned Counsel for the applicant assessee submits that the principle of consistency would require the Tribunal to adopt the same view in this Assessment Year as it did io Assessment Year 1979-80. Explanation-I added to Section 40(ii) of the Act clarifies that tax paid abroad, entitled to a deduction under Section 91 of the Act would alone be governed by Section 40(ii) of the Act. In this case, if it is held that Section 91 of the Act is not applicable, then the bar of claiming deduction to the extent of the tax paid abroad will not apply. Explanation to Section 40(ii) which has been inserted w.e.f. Tt April, 2006 is clarificatory in nature and would apply to the period with which we are concerned. This is evident from the explanation itself which begins with the words "For removal of doubts...". Therefore, it shall be deemed to have always been there even to govern the subject assessment year. Therefore, the decision of this Court in Inder Singh Gill (supra) would not apply. Thus, the tax paid in Saudi Arabia on the income accrued / arising in India is to be allowed as a deduction to arrive at the real profits, which are chargeable to tax in India. In support, reliance is also placed upon "Law and Practice of Income Tax by Kanga & Palkhivala, Edition, wherein reference is made to the decision of this Court in CIT Vs. South East Asia Shipping Co(lTA No. 123 of 1976) and CIT vs. Tata Sons Ltd. (ITA No. 209 of 2001) wherein it has been held that foreign tax does not fall within Section 40(a)(ii) of the Act and the assessee's net income after deduction / reduction of foreign taxes is his real income for the purposes of this Act.

(g) As against the above, Mr. Malhotra, learned Counsel for the Revenue submits that the issue stands concluded against the applicant by the decision of the Bombay High Court in Inder Singh Gill (supra) rendered in Reference. The decision of this Court in South Asia Shipping Co. (supra) and Tata Sons Ltd. (supra) were rendered while rejecting the applications for reference and an appeal at the stage of admission. Moreover, it is submitted that real income theory is inapplicable in view of specific provision found in Section 40 (a) (ii) of the Act which prohibits / bars deduction of any tax paid. It is submitted that in terms of the main provision in Section 40(a)(ii) of the Act, any sum paid on account of any tax on the profits and gains of business or profession will not be allowed as a deduction. The Explanation inserted w.e.f. 2006 only reiterates that any sum entitled to tax relief under Section 91 of the Act would be covered by the main part of Section 40(a)(ii) of the Act. The Explanation, he submits does not take away the taxes not covered by it out of the ambit of the main part of Section 40(a)(ii) of the Act. (h) Before dealing with the rival contentions, it would be useful to reproduce the statutory provision arising for our consideration to decide this issue. "Definitions “2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, — (1) to (42) . 43. "tax" in relation to the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1965, and any subsequent assessment year means income tax chargeable under the provisions of this Act, and in

IT(TP)A No.99/Bang/2014, IT(TP)A NO.398/Bang/2015, IT(TP)A No.222/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A Nos.492 & 2851/Bamg/2017 & IT(TP)A No.3115 of 2018 M/s. Wipro Limited, Bangalore Page 39 of 43 relation to any other assessment year income-tax and super-tax chargeable under the provisions of this Act prior to the aforesaid date [and in relation to the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 2006, and any subsequent assessment year includes the fringe benefit tax payable under Section 115WA] "Amounts not deductible 40. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in Section 30 to the following amounts shall not be deducted in computing the income chargeable under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession". (a) In the case of any assessee — (ia) (ib) (ic) ..... (ii) Any sum paid on account of any rate or tax levied on the profits or gains of any business or profession or assessed at a proportion of, or otherwise on the basis of, any such profits and gains. [Explanation 1. — For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that for the purposes of this sub-clause, any sum paid on account of any rate or tax levied includes and shall be deemed always to have included any sum eligible for relief of tax under Section 90 or, as the case nay be, deduction from the Indian income-tax payable under section 91.] [Explanation 2. — For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that for the purposes of this sub-clause, any sum paid on account of any rate or tax levied includes any sum eligible for relief of tax under Section 90A.]"

We have considered the rival submissions. So far as the question relating to the Tribunal not following its order in the case of the applicant itself for A.Y. 1979- 80, we find that there is a justification for the same. This is so as the decision of this Court in Inder Singh Gill (supra) was noted by the Tribunal on an identical issue while passing the order for the subject assessment year. Thus, the Tribunal had not erred in not following its order for A.Y. 1979-80. In fact, the decisions o this Court in South East Asia Shipping Co.(supra) and Tata Sons Ltd. (supra), which are being relied upon in preference to Inder Singh Gill (supra) cannot be accepted as both the orders being called upon by the applicant was rendered not at the final hearing but on applications under Section 256(2) of the Act and at the stage of admission under Section 260A of the Act. This unlike the judgment rendered in a Reference by this Court in Inder Singh Gill (supra). Moreover, the decision in South East Asia Shipping Co. (supra) is not available in its entirety. Therefore, it would not be safe to rely upon it as all facts and on what consideration of law, it was rendered is not known. Similarly, the decision of this Court in Tata Sons (supra) being Income Tax Appeal No. 209 of 2001 produced before us, dismissed the appeal of the Revenue by order dated 2nd April, 2004 by merely following its order dated 23 rd March, 1993 rejecting the Revenue's application for Reference under Section 256(2) of the Act. Thus, it also cannot be relied upon to decide the controversy. Moreover, the order

IT(TP)A No.99/Bang/2014, IT(TP)A NO.398/Bang/2015, IT(TP)A No.222/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A Nos.492 & 2851/Bamg/2017 & IT(TP)A No.3115 of 2018 M/s. Wipro Limited, Bangalore Page 40 of 43 of this Court in Tata Sons Ltd. (supra) as produced before us for Assessment Year 1985-86 had not noticed the decision of this Court in Inder Singh Gill (supra) on a Reference. Therefore, it is rendered per incuriam. (j) This Court in Inder Singh Gill (supra) was required to answer the question whether for the purpose of computing total world income of the assessee as defined in Section 2(15) of the l. T. Act, the income accruing in Uganda has to be reduced by the tax paid to the Uganda Government in respect of such income? The Court while answering the question in the negative observed that it is not aware of any commercial principle / practice which lays down that the tax paid by one on one's income is allowed as a deduction in determining the income for the purposes of taxation.

(k) It is axiomatic that income tax is a charge on the profits/ income. The payment of income tax is not a payment made / incurred to earn profits and gains of business. Therefore, it cannot be allowed an as expenditure to determine the profits of the business. Taxes such as Excise Duty, Customs Duty, Octroi etc., are incurred for the purpose of doing business and earning profits and/or gains from business or profession. Therefore, such expenditure is allowable as a deduction to determine the profits of the business. It is only after deducting all\ expenses incurred for the purpose of business from the total receipts that profits and/or gains of business/ profession are determined. It is this determined profits or gains of business/profession which are subject to tax as income tax under the Act. The main part of Section (a)(ii) of the Act does not allow deduction in computing the income i.e. profits and gains of business chargeable to tax to the extent, the tax is levied/ paid on the profits/ gains of business. Therefore, it was on the aforesaid general principle, universally accepted, that this Court answered the question posed to it in Inder Singh Gill (supra) in favour of the Revenue. (l) We would have answered the question posed for our consideration by following the decision of this Court in Inder Singh Gill (supra). However, we notice that the decision of this Court in Inder Singh Gill (supra) was rendered under the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 and not under the Act. We further note that just as Section 40(a)(ii) of the Act does not allow deduction on tax paid on profit and/or gain of business. The Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 Act also contains a similar provision in Section 10(4) thereof. However, the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 contains no definition of "tax" as provided in Section' 2(43) of the Act. Consequently, the tax paid on income / profits and gains of business / profession anywhere in the world would not be allowed as deduction for determining the profits / gains of the business under Section 10(4) of the Indian Tax Act, 1922. Therefore, on the state of the statutory provisions as found in the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 the decision of this Court in Inder Singh Gill (supra) would be unexceptionable. However, the ratio of the aforesaid decision in Inder Singh Gill (supra) cannot be applied to the present facts in view of the fact that the Act defines "tax" as income tax chargeable under the provisions of this Act. Thus, by definition, the tax which

IT(TP)A No.99/Bang/2014, IT(TP)A NO.398/Bang/2015, IT(TP)A No.222/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A Nos.492 & 2851/Bamg/2017 & IT(TP)A No.3115 of 2018 M/s. Wipro Limited, Bangalore Page 41 of 43 is payable under the Act alone on the profits and gains of business are not allowed to be deducted notwithstanding Sections 30 to 38 of the Act. (m) It therefore, follows that the tax which has been paid abroad would not be covered with in the meaning of Section 40(a) (ii) of the Act in view of the definition of the word 'tax' in Section 2(43) of the Act. To be covered by Section 40(a)(ii) of the Act, it has to be payable under the Act. We are conscious of the fact that Section 2 of the Act, while defining the various terms used in the Act, qualifies it by preceding the definition with the word "In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires" the meaning of the word 'tax' as found in Section 2 (43) of the Act would apply wherever it occurs in the Act. It is not even urged by the Revenue that the context of Section 40(a)(ii) of the Act would require it to mean tax paid anywhere in the world and not only tax payable/ paid under the Act.

(n) However, to the extent tax is paid abroad, the Explanation to Section 40(a)(ii) of the Act provides / clarifies that whenever an Assessee is otherwise entitled to the benefit of double income tax relief under Sections 90 or 91 of the Act, then the tax paid abroad would be governed by Section 40(a)(ii) of the Act. The occasion to insert the Explanation to Section 40(a)(ii) of the Act arose as Assessee was claiming to be entitled to obtain necessary credit to the extent of the tax paid abroad under Sections 90 or 91 of the Act and also claim the benefit of tax paid abroad as expenditure on account of not being covered by Section 40(a)(ii) of the Act. This is evident from the Explanatory notes to the Finance Act, 2006 as recorded in Circular No.14 of 2006 dated 28th December, 2006 issued by the CBDT, The above circular inter alia, records the fact that some of the assessee who are eligible for credit against the tax payable in. India on the global income to the extent the tax has been paid outside India under Sections 90 or 91 of the Act, were also claiming deduction of the tax paid abroad as it was not tax under the Act. In view of the above, Explanation inserted in 2006 to Section 40(a)(ii) of the Act, would require in the context thereof that the definition of the word "tax" under the Act to mean also the tax which is eligible to the benefit of Sections 90 and 91 of the Act. However, this departure from the meaning of the word "tax" as defined in the Act is only restricted to the above and gives no license to widen the meaning of the word "tax" as defined in the Act to include all taxes on income / profits paid abroad. (o) Therefore, on the Explanation being inserted in Section 40(a)(ii) of the Act, the tax paid in Saudi Arabia on income which has accrued and / or arisen in India is not eligible to deduction under Section 91 of the Act. Therefore, not hit by Section 40(a)(ii) of the Act. Section 91 of the Act, itself excludes income which is deemed to accrue or arise in India. Thus, the benefit of the Explanation would now be available and on application of real income theory, the quantum of tax paid in Saudi Arabia, attributable to income arising or accruing in India would be reduced for the purposes of computing the income on which tax is payable in India.

IT(TP)A No.99/Bang/2014, IT(TP)A NO.398/Bang/2015, IT(TP)A No.222/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A Nos.492 & 2851/Bamg/2017 & IT(TP)A No.3115 of 2018 M/s. Wipro Limited, Bangalore Page 42 of 43 as the applicant assessee is entitled to a deduction under Section 40(a)(ii) of the Act. This is so as it is a tax which has been paid abroad for the purpose of arriving global income on which the tax payable in India.

Therefore, to the extent the payment of tax in Saudi Arabia on income which has arisen / accrued in India has to be considered in the nature of expenditure incurred or arisen to earn income and not hit by the provisions of Section 40(a)(ii) of the Act.

(q) The Explanation to Section 40(a)(ii) of the Act was inserted into the Act by Finance Act, 2006. However, the use of the words "for removal of doubts" it is hereby declared in the Explanation inserted in Section 40(a)(ii) of the Act, makes it clear that it is declaratory in nature and would have retrospective effect. This is not even disputed by the Revenue before us as the issue of the nature of such declaratory statutes stands considered by the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Vatika Township (P) Ltd. 367 ITR 466nd CIT vs. Gold Coin Health Foods (P) Ltd. 304 ITR 308 (r) In the above facts and circumstances, question (iii)(a) is answered in the negative i.e. against the Revenue and in favour of the applicant assessee. Question (iii)(b) is answered in the negative i.e. against the Revenue and in favour of the applicant assessee. 5. We, therefore, answer the substantial question of law as posed to us by the Tribunal as under Q.(i)(a) In the affirmative i.e. in favour of the respondent Revenue and against the applicant assessee; (i)(b) In the negative i.e. in favour of the respondent Revenue and against the applicant assessee; Q.(ii) In the affirmative i.e. in favour of the respondent Revenue and against the applicant assessee;

Q.(iii)(a) In the negative i.e. in favour of the applicant assessee and against the respondent Revenue.

Q.(iii)(b) In the negative i.e. in favour of the applicant — assessee and against the respondent Rev81ue.

6.The Reference is disposed of in the above terms. No order as to costs.”

2.4 In view of the above precedents, we are of the opinion that issue is to be decided in favour of the assessee and against the revenue on similar lines. Accordingly, this ground in all these appeals is allowed.

IT(TP)A No.99/Bang/2014, IT(TP)A NO.398/Bang/2015, IT(TP)A No.222/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A Nos.492 & 2851/Bamg/2017 & IT(TP)A No.3115 of 2018 M/s. Wipro Limited, Bangalore Page 43 of 43 3. The final result of these appeals is partly allowed for statistical purposes as in earlier orders of this Tribunal. Order pronounced in the open court on 13th June, 2024

Sd/- Sd/- (Keshav Dubey) (Chandra Poojari) Judicial Member Accountant Member

Bangalore, Dated 13th June, 2024. VG/SPS

Copy to:

The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 5 Guard file By order

Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore.

M/S WIPRO LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE