CIT v. HCL Technologies Ltd.

404 ITR 719Supreme Court of India2018#556 most cited

What is CIT v. HCL Technologies Ltd. authority for?

When calculating deductions under sections like 10A or 10AA, any expenses or items reduced from 'export turnover' in the numerator must also be reduced from 'total turnover' in the denominator to ensure consistent application of the deduction formula.

174

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. HCL Technologies Ltd. · HCL Technologies · 404 ITR 719 · Section 10A · Section 10AA · export turnover · total turnover · deduction computation · consistent exclusion · communication expenses · travel expenses

Also reported as

302 CTR 191

Sections most often in play

Section 10ASection 10AASection 143(3)Section 234BSection 234CSection 115-OSection 14ASection 194R
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 10aworking capital adjustmentcomputer softwaretransfer pricing ordertested partycomparable companiesrelated party transactionsection 10aadividend distribution taxmost appropriate methodtnmmsection 40(a)(i)

Judgments citing CIT v. HCL Technologies Ltd.

Handy Waterbase India Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 2 (2), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year

ITA 1228/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Apr 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 422/Chny/2020, 672 & 1228/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar, CA &For Respondent: Shri Suresh Periasamy, JCIT
Section 10BSection 2

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी वी दुगा" राव,"या"यक सद"य एवं "ी जी. मंजुनाथ, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.: 422/Chny/2020, 672 & 1228/CHNY/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/s. Handy Waterbase The DCIT, v. India Pvt. Ltd., Company Circle II(2), No.37, Montieth Road, Chennai- 34. Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. PAN: AABCH 0440B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri T. Banusekar, CA & Shr…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Ntt Date Global Delivery Services, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 508/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Apr 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am It(Tp)A No.508/Bang/2016 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 The Dy.Commissioner Of Income- M/S.Ntt Data Global Delivery Tax, Circle 5(1)(1) Services (Formerly Known As V. Bangalore. Keane India Limited) No.18 & 81/1, South End Road, Basavangudi Bangalore – 560 004. Pan : Aabck7777J. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Ms.Neera Malhotra, Cit-Dr Respondent By : Sri.Chavali Narayan, Ca Date Of Date Of Hearing : 01.04.2021 Pronouncement : 12.04.2021 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Revenue Is Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 28.01.2016 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2011-2012. 2. The Grounds Raised Read As Follow:

For Appellant: Ms.Neera Malhotra, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Sri.Chavali Narayan, CA
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 8Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “A”, BANGALORE Before Shri George George K, JM & Shri B.R.Baskaran, AM IT(TP)A No.508/Bang/2016 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 The Dy.Commissioner of Income- M/s.NTT Data Global Delivery tax, Circle 5(1)(1) Services (Formerly known as v. Bangalore. Keane India Limited) No.18 & 81/1, South End Road, Basavangudi Bangalore – 560 004. PAN : AABCK7777J. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Ms.Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR Respondent by : Sri.Chavali Narayan, CA Date of Date of Hearing : 01.04.2021 Pronouncement : 12.04.2021 O R D E R Per George George K, JM : This appeal at th…

M/S Safran Engineering Services India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore

In the result corporate grounds raised by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 701/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Apr 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Rashmi R, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)
Section 1Section 10ASection 234D

…gain was excluded from the export turnover but not from the total turnover for the purposes of 10A deduction. 10. Admittedly this issue now is stands squarely settled by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of HCL Technologies Ltd. reported in (2018) 404 ITR 719. It has been submitted that foreign exchange gain is excluded from export turnover, should also be excluded from the total turnover for computing deduction under section 10A of the Act. 11. We accordingly direct the Ld. AO to compute the deduction is in accordance with the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of HCL Technologies Ltd.…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Core Objects India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed as indicated hereinabove and appeal filed by revenue stands allowed partly

ITA 517/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Apr 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.517/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT (DR)For Respondent: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar
Section 10ASection 143Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 194JSection 40Section 9(1)(iv)

…d reliance on orders passed by authorities below. 111. On the contrary, the Ld.Counsel submitted that the issue now stands settled in favour of assessee by virtue of decision by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs HCL Technologies Ltd., reported in (2018) 404 ITR 719. Page 54 of 55 IT(TP)A No.517 & 570/Bang/2015 112. We have considered the submissions advanced by both sides in light of records placed before us. Respectfully following the view taken by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of HCL Technologies Ltd. (supra) we are of the view that communication expenses, insurance expenses and expenditure incurred in f…

M/S Wipro Limited vs. The Additional Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, the appeal is disposed of in terms of

ITA/315/2012HC Karnataka09 Dec 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 10ASection 14ASection 260Section 260ASection 36(1)(iv)Section 80

…8. We have perused paragraphs 12 to 18 of the decision of this court in 'COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX & ANOTHER VS. TATA ELXSI LTD.' 382 ITR 654 (KAR) as well as para 21 of the Supreme Court in 'COMMISSINOER OF INCOME-TAX VS. HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD.', 404 ITR 719 (SC), we find 12 that the sixth substantial question of law is also required to be answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. However, in view of submission made by learned Senior counsel for assessee that he does not intend to press substantial question of law No.7, it is not necessary to answer the aforesaid substantia…

Pr Commissioner of vs. M/S Wipro Limited

In the result, the appeal is disposed of in terms

ITA/464/2017HC Karnataka09 Dec 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 10ASection 260Section 260ASection 32

…e by a decisions of this court M/S WIPRO LTD. VS. DCIT, 383 ITR 179 (KAR) and 'COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX & ANOTHER VS. TATA ELXSI LTD.' 382 ITR 654 (KAR) as well as para 21 of the Supreme Court in 'COMMISSINOER OF INCOME-TAX VS. HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD.', 404 ITR 719 (SC). 9. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The revenue has contended that the Assessing Officer has rightly disallowed the depreciation claimed on software, which was treated as royalty under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act on the ground that decision of this court in WIP…

M/S Wipro Limited vs. The Deputy Commissioner

In the result, the appeal is disposed of in terms of

ITA/191/2017HC Karnataka09 Dec 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 10ASection 260Section 260ASection 80I

…ourt in 'WIPRO LTD. VS. DCIT', 383 ITR 179 (KAR) and 'TATA COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX & ANOTHER VS. TATA ELXSI LTD.' 382 ITR 654 (KAR) as well as decision of the Supreme Court in 5 'COMMISSINOER OF INCOME-TAX VS. HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD.', 404 ITR 719 (SC). On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue has supported the order passed by the authorities under the Act and has submitted that the orders passed by the authorities under the Act do not call for any interference. 4. We have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the recor…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Nit Data Global Delivery Services Pvt. Ltd

ITA/351/2012HC Karnataka12 Nov 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 10ASection 260Section 260A

…by the learned counsel for the assessee that the aforesaid issues are no longer res integra and they have already been answered against the revenue by judgment of the Supreme Court in 'COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL -III VS. HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD.', 404 ITR 719. Learned counsel was unable to dispute the aforesaid legal position. 4. Learned counsel for the assessee further submitted that the third substantial question of law has already been decided against the revenue and in favour of the assessee by a judgment passed by a division bench of this court dated 22.11.2011 passed in I.T.A.No.1189/200…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Nit Data Global Delivery Services Pvt. Ltd

ITA/427/2012HC Karnataka12 Nov 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 10ASection 260Section 260A

…by the learned counsel for the assessee that the aforesaid issues are no longer res integra and they have already been answered against the revenue by judgment of the Supreme Court in 'COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL -III VS. HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD.', 404 ITR 719. Learned counsel was unable to dispute the aforesaid legal position. 4. Learned counsel for the assessee further submitted that the third substantial question of law has already been decided against the revenue and in favour of the assessee by a judgment passed by a division bench of this court dated 22.11.2011 passed in I.T.A.No.1189/200…

Asst CIT (Ltu) 1, Mumbai vs. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3389/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () It(Tp)A No. 3262/Mum/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Mr. Manish Kumar Kanth, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Uodal Raj Singh, DR
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 90

…eld that: “10. Coming to the revenue’s contention in relation to the computation of benefit of section 10A of the Act, this issue is squarely covered by the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. HCL Technologies, reported in 404 ITR 719, in which the Court held that the total turnover for the purpose of section 10 of the Act cannot be understood as defined for the purpose of section 80HHE. It was further held that thus the expenses which are to be Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. 36 excluded from the export turnover, would also have to be excluded for the purpose of computing tota…

Tata Consultancy Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Ltu 1, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3262/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () It(Tp)A No. 3262/Mum/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Mr. Manish Kumar Kanth, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Uodal Raj Singh, DR
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 90

…eld that: “10. Coming to the revenue’s contention in relation to the computation of benefit of section 10A of the Act, this issue is squarely covered by the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. HCL Technologies, reported in 404 ITR 719, in which the Court held that the total turnover for the purpose of section 10 of the Act cannot be understood as defined for the purpose of section 80HHE. It was further held that thus the expenses which are to be Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. 36 excluded from the export turnover, would also have to be excluded for the purpose of computing tota…

The Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S. Infosys Bpo Ltd

ITA/351/2016HC Karnataka09 Nov 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 10ASection 14ASection 260

…assessee submitted that the first substantial question of law, which has been framed by this Court has already been answered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL-III NEW DELHI VS. HCL TECHNOLOGIES 5 LTD.’, 2018 404 ITR 719. The aforesaid legal position could not be disputed by learned counsel for the revenue. In view of aforesaid enunciation of law by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, first substantial question of law is answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. 4. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the assessee that second substa…

M/S Padmini Products (P) Ltd vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, the aforesaid

ITA/154/2014HC Karnataka05 Oct 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 147Section 148Section 260Section 260ASection 32(1)Section 43(1)

…contained in Explanation 3 to Section 43 of the Act. In support of aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the assessee has placed reliance on decisions of Supreme Court in ‘COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL – III VS. HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD.’, (2018) 404 ITR 719 (SC), ‘BHOR INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX’, (1961) 42 ITR 57 (SC) and ‘GVK INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER’, (2011) 332 ITR 130 (SC). 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue submitted that as per Section 45 of the Act, transfer of entire business of firm to company amounts 10 to transfer o…

Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/S Yodlee Infotech Pvt Ltd

The appeal is disposed of

ITA/51/2014HC Karnataka28 Sept 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.I.ARUN

Section 10BSection 115JSection 143(1)Section 260Section 260ASection 92C

…us. 4. Learned counsel for the revenue at the outset fairly submitted that the substantial questions of law 3 and 4 have been decided against the revenue by a judgment of the Supreme Court in ‘COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III VS. HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD.’ 404 ITR 719. It is further submitted that the Tribunal should have adjudicated the case of the assessee independently and should have given findings instead of placing reliance on the decisions. In this connection, our attention has been invited to the order passed by the Tribunal. It is further pointed out that the Tribunal has failed to consider the…

Steria (India) Ltd., Noida vs. Addl. CIT, Spl. Range- 8, New Delhi

In the result ITA number 5745/del/2018 for assessment year 2014 – 15

ITA 5745/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anupam Kant Garg, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…tted that this issue is covered squarely in favour of the assessee by the following judicial precedents and circulars:- Page 21 of 95 i. Covered in favour of the appellant by decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. HCL Technologies Ltd.: 404 ITR 719 [Pg 1-7of CL PB] ii. CBDT Circular No. 4/2018 dated 14th August 2018 has also clarified this issue [Pg 8-10 of CL PB] iii. HC for AY(s)2004-05 to 2006-07 and 2008-09 to 2011-12vide ITA Nos. 756-759/2017, 762-763/2017 and 380/2017[Pg 800- 802 and 805-810] a. Department‟s SLP‟s for AY(s) 2004-05 and 2005-06 have been dismissed by the Apex Court v…

M/S Steria Ndia Ltd., Noida vs. Addl CIT, New Delhi

In the result ITA number 5745/del/2018 for assessment year 2014 – 15

ITA 741/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Sept 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anupam Kant Garg, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…tted that this issue is covered squarely in favour of the assessee by the following judicial precedents and circulars:- Page 21 of 95 i. Covered in favour of the appellant by decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. HCL Technologies Ltd.: 404 ITR 719 [Pg 1-7of CL PB] ii. CBDT Circular No. 4/2018 dated 14th August 2018 has also clarified this issue [Pg 8-10 of CL PB] iii. HC for AY(s)2004-05 to 2006-07 and 2008-09 to 2011-12vide ITA Nos. 756-759/2017, 762-763/2017 and 380/2017[Pg 800- 802 and 805-810] a. Department‟s SLP‟s for AY(s) 2004-05 and 2005-06 have been dismissed by the Apex Court v…

Steria India Ltd., Noida vs. Addl.CIT, Speciaql Range-8, New Delhi

In the result ITA number 5745/del/2018 for assessment year 2014 – 15

ITA 3992/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Sept 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anupam Kant Garg, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…tted that this issue is covered squarely in favour of the assessee by the following judicial precedents and circulars:- Page 21 of 95 i. Covered in favour of the appellant by decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. HCL Technologies Ltd.: 404 ITR 719 [Pg 1-7of CL PB] ii. CBDT Circular No. 4/2018 dated 14th August 2018 has also clarified this issue [Pg 8-10 of CL PB] iii. HC for AY(s)2004-05 to 2006-07 and 2008-09 to 2011-12vide ITA Nos. 756-759/2017, 762-763/2017 and 380/2017[Pg 800- 802 and 805-810] a. Department‟s SLP‟s for AY(s) 2004-05 and 2005-06 have been dismissed by the Apex Court v…

The Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S Mind Tree Ltd

In the result, we do not find any merit in this

ITA/251/2013HC Karnataka25 Aug 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 10BSection 260Section 260A

…the revenue is in appeal before us. 3. At the outset, learned counsel for the revenue fairly submitted that first substantial question of law has been answered against the revenue in ‘COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD.’, (2018) 404 ITR 719 (SC), whereas the second substantial question of law has also been answered against the revenue by Supreme Court in ‘COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. YOKOGAWA INDIA LTD.’, (2017) 391 ITR 274 (SC). However, with reference to third substantial question of law, it is submitted that neither the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) nor the Tr…

Tata Consultancy Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Large Tax Payer Unit, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee in AY 2008-09 is partly allowed and

ITA 794/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarvertual Court No. Iii It(Tp)A No. 3263/Mum/2017 For Ay 2008-09 It(Tp) No. 794/Mum/2018 For Ay 201-011 Tata Consultancy Services Vs Dcit Ltd.,9Th Floor, Nirmal Bldg, Large Tax Payer Unit-1, 29Th Floor, Wtc, Nariman Point. Mumbai – 21 Cufee Parade Pan Aaacr4849R Mumbai- 05. Appellant Respondednt

For Appellant: with Sh. Manish Kumar KanthFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Singh, CIT (DR)
Section 40Section 90Section 90(1)(a)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

…1207/Mum/2018. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd., Mumbai (AY 2008-09 &2010-11) appellate authority while granting relief to the assessee followed the order for AY 2005-06, whereby the Tribunal followed the order of Bombay High Court in CIT Vs HCL Technology ltd (404 ITR 719 Bom). The High Court in HCL Technology held that the expenses which are to be excluded from the turnover would also be excluded for the purpose of computing the total turnover. The ld AR for the assessee also relied on the decision of Bombay High Court in Tata Infotech Ltd in ITA No. 3474 of 2020. 40. We have considered the rival submissions…

The Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S Mind Tree Consulting Ltd

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA/175/2013HC Karnataka17 Aug 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 10BSection 260

…atter was taken up today, learned counsel for the revenue fairly submitted that the substantial questions of law have been answered against the revenue by the Supreme Court in ‘COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL-III Vs. HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD.’ (2018) 302 CTR 191 (SC). 4. In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law, the substantial questions of law framed by this Court in this 4 appeal are answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE RV…