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.

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

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA/247/2013HC Karnataka17 Aug 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 10BSection 260

…matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the revenue fairly submitted that the substantial question of law has 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 question of law framed by this Court in this appeal is answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE RV…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Kmg Infotech Pvt Ltd

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA/106/2013HC Karnataka17 Aug 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 10BSection 260

…matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the revenue fairly submitted that the substantial question of law has 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 question of law framed by this Court in this 4 appeal is answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE RV…

M/S Sandvine Technologies (India) Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-6(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the ground No

ITA 647/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.647/Bang/2017 Assessmentyear: 2012 – 13

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, D.R
Section 10ASection 143(3)

…s 10AA of the Act. The contention of the assessee is supported by the decision rendered by jurisdiction of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Tata Elixi Ltd. 349 ITR 98, which was affirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of HCL Technologies Ltd. 404 ITR 719. Accordingly, we find merit in the contentions of the assessee. Accordingly, we direct the A.O. to exclude the expenditure, which were removed from IT(TP)A No.647/Bang/2017 M/s. Sandvine Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 3 of 3 Export turnover, from total turnover also while computing deduction u/s 10AA of the Act. 4. In the result,…

Aspect Technology Center (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

In the result appeal by the Assessee and the appeal by the Revenue are partly allowed, to the extent indicated in this order

ITA 187/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaran

For Appellant: Ms. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)

…cision of the jurisdictional High Court in CIT v. Tata Elxsi Ltd., reported in [2012] 349 ITR 98 (Kar) which subsequently came to be upheld IT(TP)A Nos.187 & 175/Bang/2016 Page 38 of 38 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. HCL Technologies Ltd. 404 ITR 719 (SC). Therefore, in the light of the above judgment, the Revenue’s above ground stand rejected. 48. In the result appeal by the Assessee and the appeal by the Revenue are partly allowed, to the extent indicated in this order. Pronounced in the open court on this 30th day of July, 2020. ( B R BASKARAN ) VICE PRESIDENT Bangalore, Dated, the 30th…

ITO, Bangalore vs. M/S Aspect Technology Centre India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result appeal by the Assessee and the appeal by the Revenue are partly allowed, to the extent indicated in this order

ITA 175/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaran

For Appellant: Ms. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)

…cision of the jurisdictional High Court in CIT v. Tata Elxsi Ltd., reported in [2012] 349 ITR 98 (Kar) which subsequently came to be upheld IT(TP)A Nos.187 & 175/Bang/2016 Page 38 of 38 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. HCL Technologies Ltd. 404 ITR 719 (SC). Therefore, in the light of the above judgment, the Revenue’s above ground stand rejected. 48. In the result appeal by the Assessee and the appeal by the Revenue are partly allowed, to the extent indicated in this order. Pronounced in the open court on this 30th day of July, 2020. ( B R BASKARAN ) VICE PRESIDENT Bangalore, Dated, the 30th…

Commissioner of Income vs. M/S Tech Mahendra Ltd

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

ITA/200/2011HC Karnataka04 Jun 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 10ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234CSection 260Section 260A

…he record. The first substantial question of law framed by bench of this court need not detain us as it is no longer res integra and is squarely covered by decision of the supreme court in ‘COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX V. HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD.’, (2018) 404 ITR 719 (SC). In view of aforesaid enunciation of law, the tribunal was justified in directing the assessing officer to exclude telecommunication expense, per diem expenses. It is pertinent to note that in case expenses are incurred on insurance in respect of the employees of the assessee on visit to their clients premises, the same also deserves…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore vs. M/S Yahoo Software Development Pvt Ltd, Bangalore

ITA 2510/BANG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Apr 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vice- & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Sri.Sriram Seshadri, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Muzaffar Hussain, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 194ISection 40

…are pending before the Hon’ble Apex Court?” 4. After hearing both the parties and perusing the material on record, we find that this issue is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. HCL Technologies Limited [(2018) 404 ITR 719 (SC)], wherein it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the expenditure incurred towards telecommunication charges and foreign travel expenses attributed to the delivery of computer software for providing technical services outside India to be excluded both from export turnover and total turnover for the purpose of computation of deduction u…

Income-Tax Officer, Haveri vs. M/S.Mahalaxmi Urban Co-Op Society Ltd., Haveri

ITA 133/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Apr 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vice- & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Sri.Sriram Seshadri, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Muzaffar Hussain, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 194ISection 40

…are pending before the Hon’ble Apex Court?” 4. After hearing both the parties and perusing the material on record, we find that this issue is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. HCL Technologies Limited [(2018) 404 ITR 719 (SC)], wherein it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the expenditure incurred towards telecommunication charges and foreign travel expenses attributed to the delivery of computer software for providing technical services outside India to be excluded both from export turnover and total turnover for the purpose of computation of deduction u…

ACIT, Chennai vs. M/S Teledata Informatics Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2427/CHNY/2007[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Feb 2020AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru R.L.Reddy

For Appellant: Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs.Vijaya Prabha, JCIT
Section 10BSection 143(3)

…not received within the stipulated period from both the export turnover as well as the total turnover. Thus, the decision of the Ld.CIT(A) is inconsonance with the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. HCL Technologies Ltd. reported in 404 ITR 719 and also the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. M/s.Maars Software International Ltd., wherein the Hon’ble Madras High Court has held as under: 22. Learned Counsel for the Revenue seeks to distinguish the above judgment stating that the rationale thereof would be applicable only to the items of exclusion at…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S. Sungard Solutions (I) Pvt. Ltd., Pune

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 463/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 154Section 40Section 92C

…ore TPO and DRP and further submitted that identical issue arose in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2009-10 wherein the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal after relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. HCL Technologies reported in 404 ITR 719 held that for the computation of deduction u/s 10A of the Act, expenses have to be excluded both from the export turnover and the total turnover. He pointed to the relevant findings of the Tribunal which are placed at Page 949 of the Paper Book. He therefore submitted that no interference to the order of DRP is called for. 26. We have heard the…

Sungard Solutions (India) P. Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 338/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 154Section 40Section 92C

…ore TPO and DRP and further submitted that identical issue arose in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2009-10 wherein the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal after relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. HCL Technologies reported in 404 ITR 719 held that for the computation of deduction u/s 10A of the Act, expenses have to be excluded both from the export turnover and the total turnover. He pointed to the relevant findings of the Tribunal which are placed at Page 949 of the Paper Book. He therefore submitted that no interference to the order of DRP is called for. 26. We have heard the…

M/S Sungard Solutions (India) Private Limited, Pune vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 540/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 154Section 40Section 92C

…ore TPO and DRP and further submitted that identical issue arose in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2009-10 wherein the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal after relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. HCL Technologies reported in 404 ITR 719 held that for the computation of deduction u/s 10A of the Act, expenses have to be excluded both from the export turnover and the total turnover. He pointed to the relevant findings of the Tribunal which are placed at Page 949 of the Paper Book. He therefore submitted that no interference to the order of DRP is called for. 26. We have heard the…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Sungard Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 519/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 154Section 40Section 92C

…ore TPO and DRP and further submitted that identical issue arose in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2009-10 wherein the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal after relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. HCL Technologies reported in 404 ITR 719 held that for the computation of deduction u/s 10A of the Act, expenses have to be excluded both from the export turnover and the total turnover. He pointed to the relevant findings of the Tribunal which are placed at Page 949 of the Paper Book. He therefore submitted that no interference to the order of DRP is called for. 26. We have heard the…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Renault Nissan Technology & Business Centre Indai Private Limited, Kancheepuram

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 187/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Appellant: Shri. Ashik Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. S. Ramakrishnan, CIT
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 92C

…on charges from both export turnover and total turnover. The issue is no longer res integra, and has been decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. HCL Technologies Ltd, (2018) 404 ITR 719, wherein at para 19 to 21, it has been held as under:- ‘’19. In the instant case, if the deductions on freight, telecommunication and insurance attributable to the delivery of computer software under section 10A of the Income-tax Act are allowed only in export turnover but not from the total turnover then, it would give rise to ITA Nos.182 & 1…

Renault Nissan Technology & Business Centre Indai Private Limited, Kancheepuram vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 182/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Appellant: Shri. Ashik Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. S. Ramakrishnan, CIT
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 92C

…on charges from both export turnover and total turnover. The issue is no longer res integra, and has been decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. HCL Technologies Ltd, (2018) 404 ITR 719, wherein at para 19 to 21, it has been held as under:- ‘’19. In the instant case, if the deductions on freight, telecommunication and insurance attributable to the delivery of computer software under section 10A of the Income-tax Act are allowed only in export turnover but not from the total turnover then, it would give rise to ITA Nos.182 & 1…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1(2), Pune vs. Fis Solutions Software Pvt. Ltd, (Earlier Known As Sungard Solutions India Pvt. Ltd.), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2049/PUN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jan 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 2049/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1(2), Pune. .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. Fis Solutions Software Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier Known As Sungard Software Solutions Pvt. Ltd.) Embassy Icon, No.3, Infantry Road, Bangalore- 560 001. Pan: Aaeca9056B ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Goutam Jain &For Respondent: Shri T. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, CIT
Section 10ASection 139(1)Section 142(2)

…cordingly allowed.” 12. The Ld. AR of the assessee placed strong reliance on the findings of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) and also submitted that this issue is covered by the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT Vs. HCL Technologies Ltd. 404 ITR 719 wherein the Hon‟ble Apex Court has held that “when object of formula in section 10A for computation of deduction is to arrive at profit from export business, expenses excluded from export turnover have to be excluded from total turnover also; otherwise, any other interpretation makes formula unworkable and absurd and hence, such deduction shall b…

Emulex Communications Private Limited, Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the assessee and the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 230/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri A. K. Garodiait(Tp)A Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year 230/Bang/2015 M/S. Emulex Communications Income-Tax Officer, 2010-11 Pvt. Ltd., Ward – 2(1)(4), Millenium Towers-C, 3Rd Floor, Bengaluru. ‘The Millenia’ 1 & 2, Murphy Road, Ulsoor, Bengaluru – 560 008. Pan : Aacca 9990 L 152/Bang/2015 Income-Tax Officer, M/S. Emulex Communications 2010-11 Ward – 2(1)(4), Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 008. Pan : Aacca 9990 L Revenue By : Shri. C. H. Sundar Rao, Cit-Dr(Itat)(Bengaluru) Assessee By : Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 06.11.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.11.2019 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan:

For Appellant: Shri. T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. C. H. Sundar Rao, CIT-DR(ITAT)(Bengaluru)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

…the decisions of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in CIT v. Tata Elxsi Ltd., reported at [2012] 349 ITR 98 (Kar) which has since been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 24.04.2018 in C/T v. HCL Technologies Ltd. (reported at [2018] 404 ITR 719 (SC)). Consequently, ground Nos.2 and 3 by the Revenue are dismissed. 26. The other grounds which require consideration in assessee’s appeal are ground Nos.5 and 6 which are grounds relating to non granting MAT credit u/s.115JAA of the Act brought forward from AY 2008-09 and the ground relating incorrect credit for advance tax paid for AY 2010-1…

ITO, Bangalore vs. M/S Emulex Communications Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the assessee and the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 152/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri A. K. Garodiait(Tp)A Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year 230/Bang/2015 M/S. Emulex Communications Income-Tax Officer, 2010-11 Pvt. Ltd., Ward – 2(1)(4), Millenium Towers-C, 3Rd Floor, Bengaluru. ‘The Millenia’ 1 & 2, Murphy Road, Ulsoor, Bengaluru – 560 008. Pan : Aacca 9990 L 152/Bang/2015 Income-Tax Officer, M/S. Emulex Communications 2010-11 Ward – 2(1)(4), Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 008. Pan : Aacca 9990 L Revenue By : Shri. C. H. Sundar Rao, Cit-Dr(Itat)(Bengaluru) Assessee By : Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 06.11.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.11.2019 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan:

For Appellant: Shri. T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. C. H. Sundar Rao, CIT-DR(ITAT)(Bengaluru)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

…the decisions of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in CIT v. Tata Elxsi Ltd., reported at [2012] 349 ITR 98 (Kar) which has since been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 24.04.2018 in C/T v. HCL Technologies Ltd. (reported at [2018] 404 ITR 719 (SC)). Consequently, ground Nos.2 and 3 by the Revenue are dismissed. 26. The other grounds which require consideration in assessee’s appeal are ground Nos.5 and 6 which are grounds relating to non granting MAT credit u/s.115JAA of the Act brought forward from AY 2008-09 and the ground relating incorrect credit for advance tax paid for AY 2010-1…

Beach Mineral Company (P) Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

ITA 2003/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Nov 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S.Jayaraman

For Appellant: Mr.S.Sridhar,AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.AR.V.Sreenivasan,JCIT,DR
Section 10BSection 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)

…would become exempt income. 7.2 In respect of Ground Nos. 4.1 to 4.2 of Revenue’s appeal, it was submitted by ld.AR that the issue was squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of C.I.T Vs. HCL Technologies Ltd., reported in 404 ITR 719(SC) wherein the Supreme Court has held that if a term is defined u/s.2 of the Act, then definition would be applicable to all provisions wherein same term appears; and the term ‘total turnover’ has been defined in Explanation to Sections 80HHC and 80HHE of the Act, wherein it has been clearly stated that ‘for purposes of this section only’, an…

Beach Mineral Company (P) Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

ITA 2002/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Nov 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S.Jayaraman

For Appellant: Mr.S.Sridhar,AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.AR.V.Sreenivasan,JCIT,DR
Section 10BSection 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)

…would become exempt income. 7.2 In respect of Ground Nos. 4.1 to 4.2 of Revenue’s appeal, it was submitted by ld.AR that the issue was squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of C.I.T Vs. HCL Technologies Ltd., reported in 404 ITR 719(SC) wherein the Supreme Court has held that if a term is defined u/s.2 of the Act, then definition would be applicable to all provisions wherein same term appears; and the term ‘total turnover’ has been defined in Explanation to Sections 80HHC and 80HHE of the Act, wherein it has been clearly stated that ‘for purposes of this section only’, an…