ITO, BANGALORE vs. M/S AURIGENE DISCOVERY TECHNOLOGIES (P) LTD., BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 804/BANG/2015Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 February 2016AY 2010-116 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 10B should be allowed prior to setting off brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision. Similarly, foreign currency expenses are to be excluded from total turnover as per the High Court's ruling.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order allowing deduction under Section 10B without setting off unabsorbed depreciation and excluding foreign currency expenses from total turnover. The CIT(A) relied on the jurisdictional High Court's decision in the assessee's own case for AY 2009-10.

What were the issues?

Whether unabsorbed depreciation and brought forward losses should be set off before computing deduction under Section 10B, and whether foreign currency expenses should be excluded from total turnover for Section 10B calculation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCH ‘ B ’

Before: SHRI VIJAYPAL RAO & SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO

For Appellant: Shri T.N. Prakash, Addl. CIT (D.R)

Per Shri Vijaypal Rao, J.M. : These two appeals by the Revenue are directed against the two separate orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) both dt.20.3.2015.

1.

2. The Revenue has raised common grounds in these two appeals. The Grounds raised for the Assessment Year 2010-11 are as under :

“1. The order of the CIT (Appeals) is opposed to law and the facts and circumstances of the case.

2 & 805/Bang/2015 2. The CIT (Appeals) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to follow the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble High Court in assessee's own case for Assessment Year 2009- 10, wherein interalia reliance was placed on the decision of Karnataka High Court in the case of Yokogawa India Limited 341 ITR 385 (Kar) and allow the claim of the assessee of the deduction under Section 10B without setting off unabsorbed depreciation of the earlier years without appreciating the fact that the decision of the Karnataka High Court has not reached finality as a SLP has been preferred against the said decision.

3.

The CIT (Appeals) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to allow the claim of the assessee of the deduction under Section 10B without setting off unabsorbed depreciation of the earlier years by relying on the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in assessee's own case for Assessment Year 2009-10, wherein interalia reliance was placed on the decision of Karnataka High Court in the case of Yokogawa India Limited without appreciating the fact that the relief allowed is a deduction and not an exclusion from the total income which is also clarified by the Board’s Circular No.7/2013 ? 4. The CIT (Appeals) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to follow the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble High Court in assessee's own case for Assessment Year 2009- 10, wherein interalia reliance was placed on the decision of Karnataka High Court in the case of Tata Elxsi Limited 349 ITR 98 and exclude the expenditure incurred in foreign currency towards communication, freight and other charges from the total turnover also while computing the deduction under Section 10B that such expenses should be reduced from the total turnover also, as clause (iii) of the explanation to Section 10B provides that such expenses are to be reduced only form the export turnover.

5. The CIT (Appeals) erred in not appreciating the fact that the jurisdictional High Court’s decision in the case of Tata Elxsi Limited 349 ITR 98 on which the jurisdictional High Court relied in assessee's own case for Assessment Year 2009- 10 has not been accepted by the department and an appeal has been filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

6. For these and such other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, it is humbly prayed that the order of the CIT (Appeals) be reversed and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.

7. The appellant craves leave to add, to alter, to amend or delete any of the grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal.”

adjudication.

4.

Ground Nos. 2 & 3 are regarding allowing the claim of deduction under Section 10B without setting off unabsorbed depreciation of earlier year.

5.

We have heard the rival submissions as well as considered the relevant material on record. The Assessing Officer has restricted the claim of deduction under Section 10B after setting off of brought forward losses and brought forward unabsorbed depreciation of the earlier year. On appeal, the C I T (Appeals) allowed the claim of the assessee by following the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in assessee's own case for the Assessment Year 2009-10.

6.

The learned Departmental Representative has submitted that the issue was decided by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Himatasingike Seide Ltd. Vs. CIT 286 ITR 255 (Kar) and the SLP filed by the assessee against the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Himatasingike Seide Ltd. was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

7.

On the other hand, the learned Authorised Representative has pointed out that the issue is now covered by the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in assessee's own case for the Assessment Year 2009-10 as well as by the India Ltd. 341 ITR 385 (Kar).

8.

Having considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record, we find that the judgment in the case of Himatasingike Seide Ltd. (supra) was delivered by the Hon'ble High Court prior to the amendment in Sections 10A and 10B vide Finance Act, 2000 and 2001. Therefore, the said judgment is not applicable on the issue arises from the amended provisions of section 10A & 10B.

The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Yokogawa India Ltd. (supra) has decided in favour of the assessee by holding that the deduction under Sections 10A & 10B has to be allowed prior to the setting off of brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation. We further note that in assessee's own case for the Assessment Year 2009-10, the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court has decided this issue in favour of the assessee vide order dt.5.9.2014 in of 2013 in Pages 2 & 3 as under :-

“ This appeal is preferred by the Revenue raising the following two substantial questions of law : 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances and in law the Tribunal was correct in holding that the expenditure incurred in foreign currency excluded from export turnover has to be excluded from total turnover when there is no provision in Section 10B to exclude from total turnover? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances and in law the Tribunal was correct in holding that the unabsorbed depreciation and the brought forward loss cannot be set off from business profits before computing

2.

The first substantial question of law is covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of CIT & Another Vs. Tata Elxsi Ltd. & Ors reported in (2012) 349 ITR 98 (Karn.) Similarly, the second substantial question of law is also covered by the decision of this Court in the case of CIT & Another Vs. Yokogawa India Ltd. & Ors reported in (2012) 341 ITR 385 (Karn.) Therefore, as the said questions of law are already answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue, we do not see any merit in this appeal.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. However, it was submitted by the Revenue that against the aforesaid two judgments of this Court, appeals are filed and are pending before the Apex Court. Hence, in the event of Revenue succeeding before the Apex Court, the Assessing Authority shall pass consequential orders under Section 260(1A) of Income Tax Act, 1961, as per the orders to be passed by the Apex Court.”

Accordingly, in view of the judgment of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court on this issue, we do not find any error or illegality in the impugned order of CIT (Appeals).

9.

Ground Nos.4 & 5 are regarding exclusion of expenditure incurred in foreign currency towards communication, freight and other charges from the export turnover as well total turnover.

10.

We have heard the rival submissions as well as considered the relevant material on record. At the outset we note that this issue is covered by the judgment of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Tata Elxsi Ltd. 349 ITR

98.

We further note that this issue also decided by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court for the Assessment Year 2009-10 vide order dt.5.9.2014 (supra), the paragraphs. Accordingly, in view of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Tata Elxsi Ltd. 349 (supra) and assessee's own case for the A.Y. 2009-10, we do not find any error or illegality in the impugned order of the CIT (Appeals).

11 In the result, the revenue’s appeals are dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 12th day of Feb., 2016.

More judgments on Section 10B

All 1,217 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →