ITO, BANGALORE vs. M/S RELQ SOFTWARE PVT. LTD., BANGALORE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that losses from a non-STPI unit cannot be set off against profits of an STPI unit for Section 10A deduction. However, the issue regarding the exclusion of foreign exchange expenses from export turnover was remanded for re-examination.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a software company, claimed deduction under Section 10A for its STPI unit. The Assessing Officer (AO) sought to set off losses from a non-STPI unit against the STPI unit's profits and exclude foreign exchange expenses from export turnover. The CIT(A) allowed the assessee's appeal on both counts.
What were the issues?
Whether losses from a non-STPI unit can be set off against STPI unit profits for Section 10A deduction, and whether foreign exchange expenses for technical services rendered outside India should be excluded from export turnover.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH: BANGALORE
Before: SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI & SHRI ABRAHAM P GEORGE
Date of hearing : 17/03/2015 Date of pronouncement: 31/03/2015 O R D E R Per Smt. P.MADHAVI DEVI, JM:
These are appeals filed by the revenue against the identical orders of the CIT(A)-V, Bangalore, dated 20/10/2011 for the assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04. In both the appeals, the Revenue is aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A) in directing the Assessing Officer (AO) (i) not to set off the loss of non-STPI unit against profits of STPI unit for the purpose of computing deduction u/s 10A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 & 1382/Bang/2011 M/s.Relq Software Pvt.Ltd. Page 2 of 5 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short]; and (ii) not to exclude the that the expenses incurred in foreign exchange for technical services rendered outside India from the export turnover for the purpose of computing deduction u/s 10A of the Act.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee-company which is engaged in the business of software validation, testing and verification, filed its return of income for the relevant assessment year. During the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) read with sec.147 of the Act, the AO examined the assessee’s claim of deduction u/s 10A of the Act. On perusal of the assessee’s claim, the AO observed that the assessee has one STPI unit and another non-STPI unit located at Bangalore. He further observed that the assessee has loss from non-STPI unit and profit from STPI unit and the assessee has claimed deduction u/s 10A of the Act from profits from STPI unit. He held that loss from non-STPI unit is to be set off against profits of the STPI unit before computing deduction u/s 10A of the Act.
Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) who allowed the same by following the decision of the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2004-05 wherein, after following the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Yokogawa India Ltd., in it was held that profits or loss of non-STPI cannot & 1382/Bang/2011 M/s.Relq Software Pvt.Ltd. Page 3 of 5 be set off against profits of the STPI unit. Against the relief given by the CIT(A), the revenue is in appeal before us.
After hearing both the parties and after going through the records and also the judicial precedents relied upon by both the parties, we find that the assessee’s own case had come up before the Hon’ble High Court in and by order dated 25/07/2014, the Hon’ble High Court has held that carried forward loss or unabsorbed depreciation of non-STPI unit cannot be set off against the income of the STPI unit for the purpose of computation of deduction u/s 10A of the Act. Therefore, we see no reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A) on this issue.
As regards the second issue i.e. exclusion of the expenditure incurred by the assessee in foreign exchange outside India, the AO observed that the expenditure incurred in foreign exchange by the assessee pertains to payments made to engineers working on-site, who are engaged in making of computer software. The AO held that the services rendered by the assessee are technical services and therefore these expenses incurred in foreign currency for rendering technical services outside India re to be excluded from the export turnover while reckoning profits u/s 10A of the Act.
Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) who allowed the same by following the decision of the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case and directed the AO to & 1382/Bang/2011 M/s.Relq Software Pvt.Ltd. Page 4 of 5 exclude communication charges of Rs.4,59,941/- only as specified by the Tribunal. Aggrieved by the relief given by the CIT(A), the revenue is in appeal before us.
Upon hearing both the parties and upon considering the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in assessee’s own case for the earlier assessment year, we find that the Hon’ble High Court had remanded the issue to the file of the AO to decide whether the said technical services rendered were in connection with export of computer software or it is a case of exclusively rendering technical services and based on such factual finding, to compute the liability of tax or exemption. It is the case of the learned counsel for the assessee that for the relevant assessment year, facts are on record and therefore there was no need for any fresh remand to the AO.
Having regard to the rival contentions and also the material on record, it is indeed stated in the assessment order by the AO that the expenditure incurred in foreign currency is towards payment to engineers sent abroad for software development. It is not clear as to whether it relates to computer software exported by the assessee. In view of the same, we deem it fit and proper to remand the issue to the file of the AO for re-examination of facts and if it is found that development of computer software is pursuant to the export of computer software being carried out by the assessee, then the said & 1382/Bang/2011 M/s.Relq Software Pvt.Ltd. Page 5 of 5 expenditure shall not be excluded from the export turnover. The ground of appeal No.3 in both the assessment years is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, both the revenue’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Pronounced in the open court on 31st March, 2015.
More judgments on Section 10A
- Ahaguru Education Technology Private… vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 1993/CHNY/2026[2023-24]Status: Disposed23 Sept 2026AY 2023-24
- M/S. Aradhyaa Infra & Holdings Pvt. Ltd… vs ITO, Corp. Ward-1(1), ChennaiITA 1793/CHNY/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed3 Sept 2026AY 2020-21
- Tech Mahindra Ltd, Mumbai vs DCIT Cir 2(3), MumbaiITA 7487/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: Disposed24 Aug 2026AY 2008-09
- D.C.I.T. Circle 3(3), Mumbai vs Rbs Business Services P. Ltd., MumbaiITA 4467/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: Disposed14 Aug 2026AY 2007-08
- Rbs Business Services P.Ltd, Mumbai vs DCIT Cir 3(3), MumbaiITA 4306/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: Disposed14 Aug 2026AY 2007-08
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Shri Yaras Suresh Babu Prabhu Kumar vs. The Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026
- Santa Singh vs. SuperintendentUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Azaad Builders vs. Assistant Commissioner SGSTUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Ganesh Trimbak Saraf And Another vs. The State Of Maharashtra And AnotherBombay · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Monolith Resorts Private Limited vs. The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026