What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that reimbursement expenditure not forming part of export turnover should also not form part of total turnover. The pendency of an appeal before the High Court was not a sufficient ground to deviate from the Special Bench's decision.

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(Appeals) order concerning the assessment year 2009-10. The core issue was whether reimbursement expenditure, not included in export turnover, should be part of total turnover.

What were the issues?

Whether reimbursement expenditure, excluded from export turnover, should be included in total turnover for the purpose of calculating deductions.

ACIT vs Wabco India Limited, Chennai | ITAT Chennai 2016

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI

For Respondent: Shri M. Balasubramaniyam, FCA

Hearing: 27.01.2016Pronounced: 19.02.2016

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No.2238/Mds/2015

C.O. No.14/Mds/2016

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

आदेश /O R D E R

PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

The Revenue has filed the present appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Chennai, dated 16.09.2015 for the assessment year 2009-10. The assessee has filed the cross-objection against the very same order.

There was a delay of 3 days in filing this appeal by the Revenue. The Revenue has filed a petition for condonation of delay. We have heard the Ld. representative and the Ld. D.R. We find that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal before the stipulated time. Therefore, we condone the delay and admit the appeal.

We heard Shri A.V. Sreekanth, the Ld. Departmental Representative and Shri M. Balasubramaniyam, the Ld. representative for the assessee. The only issue arises for consideration is with regard to reimbursement expenditure, which was not excluded in the export turnover, whether it should form part of total turnover. The CIT(Appeals) by following the decision of Special Bench of this Tribunal in CIT v. Saksoft Ltd. [313 ITR (AT)

353] found that reimbursement expenditure which does not form part of export turnover shall not form part of total turnover also. The only contention of the Ld. D.R. is that an appeal was filed before the Madras High Court against the decision of Special Bench of this Tribunal in Saksoft Limited (supra). This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that mere pendency of appeal before Madras High Court cannot be a ground to take a different view by this 3 C.O. No.14/Mds/16 Tribunal. It is not the case of the Revenue that the Madras High Court stayed the operation of the decision of the Special Bench in Saksoft Limited. Furthermore, the denominator and the numerator should be of the same figure. When the numerator does not form part of the reimbursement expenditure, the same cannot form part of denominator also. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the CIT(Appeals) has rightly allowed the claim of the assessee. Hence, no interference is called for.

3. The assessee has filed the cross-objection only to support the order of the CIT(Appeals). Hence, the cross-objection becomes infructuous.

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the cross- objection of the assessee are dismissed.

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. WABCO INDIA LIMITED, CHENNAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments