Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
1/10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JULY 2018
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI
AND
THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA
I.T.A. No.443/2015
BETWEEN :
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE
THE Dy. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), RASHTROTHANA BHAVAN, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI K.V.ARAVIND, ADV.)
AND :
M/s AMBA RESEARCH INDIA PVT. LTD., 12TH FLOOR, CONCORDE TOWER, U.B. CITY NO.24, VITTAL MALLAYA ROAD, BANGALORE PAN: AAECA 9391H
…RESPONDENT
(RESPONDENT SERVED.)
THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 17/04/2015 PASSED IN ITA NO.1376/BANG/2014, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-2010 ANNEXURE-D. PRAYING TO: I. FORMULATE
Date of Judgment 19-07-2018, ITA No.443/2015 The Commissioner of Income Tax & another Vs. M/s Amba Research India Pvt. Ltd.
2/10
THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE. II. ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ITAT, BANGALORE IN ITA NO.1376/BANG/2014 DATED 17/04/2015 ANNEXURE-D CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER AND CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), BANGALORE.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, S. SUJATHA, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T
Mr. K.V. Aravind, Adv. for Appellants – Revenue.
This Appeal is filed by the Revenue purportedly raising substantial questions of law arising from the Order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench ‘B’, Bangalore in IT[TP]A No.1376/Bang/2014 dated 17.04.2015, relating to the Assessment Year 2009-10.
This Appeal has been admitted on 24.11.2015 to consider the following substantial questions of law as framed by the Revenue in the Memorandum of Appeal.
“1. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that foreign exchange loss/gain is
Date of Judgment 19-07-2018, ITA No.443/2015 The Commissioner of Income Tax & another Vs. M/s Amba Research India Pvt. Ltd.
3/10
operating in nature, without ascertaining the nexus of the forex gain/loss with the business activity of the assessee and without appreciating that such loss/gain though attributable to the operating activity is not derived from the operating activity?
Whether the Tribunal was right in concluding that forex gain/loss are to be treated as operating in nature without appreciating that though they may be incidental to the operating activity, they cannot be deemed as operating in nature since, they are not critical to operational of the business conducted by the assessee?
Whether the Tribunal was correct in directing the assessing officer to recomputed the deduction under section 10A after reducing telecommunication expenses and expenses incurred in foreign currency on travel from total turnover also, without appreciating that there is no provision in section 10A to the effect that such expenses should also be reduced from the total turnover, as clause (iv) of the explanation to section 10A provides that such expenses have to be reduced only from the export turnover?”
Regarding Substantial Question No.3:
The issue is covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Central – III vs. HCL Technologies Ltd., [2018] 93 Taxmann.com 33(SC).
The relevant portion of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of HCL
Date of Judgment 19-07-2018, ITA No.443/2015 The Commissioner of Income Tax & another Vs. M/s Amba Research India Pvt. Ltd.
4/10
Technologies Ltd. (supra), is quoted below for ready reference:- “17. The similar nature of controversy, akin this case, arose before the Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Tata Elxsi Ltd. [2012] 204 Taxman 321/17/taxman.com 100/349 ITR 98. The issue before the Karnataka High Court was whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that while computing relief under Section 10A of the IT Act, the amount of communication expenses should be excluded from the total turnover if the same are reduced from the export turnover? While giving the answer to the issue, the High Court, inter-alia, held that when a particular word is not defined by the legislature and an ordinary meaning is to be attributed to it, the said ordinary meaning is to be in conformity with the context in which it is used. Hence, what is excluded from ‘export turnover’ must also be excluded from ‘total turnover’, since one of the components of ‘total turnover’ is export turnover. Any other interpretation
Date of Judgment 19-07-2018, ITA No.443/2015 The Commissioner of Income Tax & another Vs. M/s Amba Research India Pvt. Ltd.
5/10
would run counter to the legislative intent and would be impermissible.
XXXXXX
In the instant case, if the deductions on freight, telecommunication and insurance attributable to the delivery of computer software under Section 10A of the IT Act are allowed only in Export Turnover but not from the Total Turnover then, it would give rise to inadvertent, unlawful, meaningless and illogical result which would cause grave injustice to the Respondent which could have never been the intention of the legislature.
Even in common parlance, when the object of the formula is to arrive at the profit from export business, expenses excluded from export turnover have to be excluded from total turnover also.
Otherwise, any other interpretation makes the formula unworkable and absurd. Hence, we are satisfied that such deduction shall be allowed from the total turnover in same proportion as well”.
Date of Judgment 19-07-2018, ITA No.443/2015 The Commissioner of Income Tax & another Vs. M/s Amba Research India Pvt. Ltd.
6/10
Regarding Substantial Question Nos.1 & 2: 5. The learned Tribunal, after discussing the rival contentions of both the Appellants-Revenue and Respondent-Assessee, has returned findings as under: “5.7 We have heard the rival contentions and perused and carefully considered the material on record; including the judicial decisions cited and placed reliance upon. We observe that it has not been disputed that the foreign exchange gain has arisen as a consequence of the realization of the consideration for rendering ITES services and therefore there is no reason for its exclusion from the operating revenues for the purpose of calculating the operating margin of the assessee. We find that this proposition has been upheld by a co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of Mindteck (India) Ltd. in IT(TP)A No.70/Bang/2014 dt.21.8.2014 wherein at para 11 thereof it has been held as under :- xxx xxx xxx Following the decision of the co-ordinate benches of this Tribunal in the case of Sap Labs India
Date of Judgment 19-07-2018, ITA No.443/2015 The Commissioner of Income Tax & another Vs. M/s Amba Research India Pvt. Ltd.
7/10
(Pvt.) Ltd. (surpa), Triology E Business Software India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and Mindteck (India) Ltd. (supra), we hold that operating revenue should be computed by including the foreign exchange gain. Consequently, the grounds at S.Nos.2 to 4 raised by revenue are dismissed.”
The controversy involved herein is no more res integra in view of the decision of this Court in I.T.A. Nos.536/2015 c/w 537/2015 dated 25.06.2018 [Prl. Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. V/s. M/s.Softbrands India Pvt. Ltd.,] wherein it has been observed that unless the finding of the Tribunal is found ex facie perverse, the Appeal u/s. 260-A of the Act, is not maintainable. The relevant portion of the Judgment is quoted below for ready reference: “Conclusion: 55. A substantial quantum of international trade and transactions depends upon the fair and quick judicial dispensation in such cases. Had it been a case of substantial question of interpretation of provisions of Double Taxation Avoidance Treaties (DTAA), interpretation of provisions of the Income Tax Act or Overriding Effect of the Treaties over the Domestic
Date of Judgment 19-07-2018, ITA No.443/2015 The Commissioner of Income Tax & another Vs. M/s Amba Research India Pvt. Ltd.
8/10
Legislations or the questions like Treaty Shopping, Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS), Transfer of Shares in Tax Havens (like in the case of Vodafone etc.), if based on relevant facts, such substantial questions of law could be raised before the High Court under Section 260-A of the Act, the Courts could have embarked upon such exercise of framing and answering such substantial question of law. On the other hand, the appeals of the present tenor as to whether the comparables have been rightly picked up or not, Filters for arriving at the correct list of comparables have been rightly applied or not, do not in our considered opinion, give rise to any substantial question of law. 56. We are therefore of the considered opinion that the present appeals filed by the Revenue do not give rise to any substantial question of law and the suggested substantial questions of law do not meet the requirements of Section 260-A of the Act and thus the appeals filed by the Revenue are found to be devoid of merit and the same are liable to be dismissed.
We make it clear that the same yardsticks and parameters will have to be applied, even if such appeals are filed by the
Date of Judgment 19-07-2018, ITA No.443/2015 The Commissioner of Income Tax & another Vs. M/s Amba Research India Pvt. Ltd.
9/10
Assessees, because, there may be cases where the Tribunal giving its own reasons and findings has found certain comparables to be good comparables to arrive at an ‘Arm’s Length Price’ in the case of the assessees with which the assessees may not be satisfied and have filed such appeals before this Court. Therefore we clarify that mere dissatisfaction with the findings of facts arrived at by the learned Tribunal is not at all a sufficient reason to invoke Section 260-A of the Act before this Court. 58. The appeals filed by the Revenue are therefore dismissed with no order as to costs.”
In the circumstances, having heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants-Revenue, We are of the considered opinion that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present case.
Date of Judgment 19-07-2018, ITA No.443/2015 The Commissioner of Income Tax & another Vs. M/s Amba Research India Pvt. Ltd.
10/10
Hence, the Appeal filed by the Appellants- Revenue is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
Copy of this order be sent to the Respondent- Assessee, forthwith.
Sd/- JUDGE
Sd/- JUDGE AN/-