9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (12) TMI 1660 - AT - Income TaxClaim of deduction u/s 10B - profit enhanced due to voluntary adjustment to ALP of export of services made to AE as eligible for deduction - HELD THAT - As decided in I GATE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD. VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 2007 (11) TMI 444 - ITAT BANGALORE if income increased as a result of computation of aim s length price then such increase is not to be considered for deduction under section 10A. In the instant case the assessee himself has computed the arm s length prices and has disclosed the income on the basis of arm s length prices. It is not a case where there is an enhancement of income due to determination of arm s length price. Hence it is held that assessee was entitled to deduction under section 10A in respect of income declared in the return of income on the basis of computation of arm s length price Also in M/S I. GATE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD 2014 (6) TMI 1007 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT held that the error committed by the AO was relying on Section 92(C)(4) to a case where Arm s Length Price was determined by the assessee whereas the said provision applies to a case where Arm s Length Price was determined by the AO that mistake has been corrected by the tribunal set aside the order passed by the commissioner as well as the assessing authority - thus we direct the AO to delete the addition made by the AO. Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Restriction of deduction under Section 10B of the Income Tax Act. 2. Adjustment to Arm's Length Price (ALP) and its impact on deduction under Section 10B. 3. Applicability of proviso to Section 92C(4) for rejecting deduction under Section 10B. 4. Distinguishing the decision of the Bangalore Tribunal. 5. Levy of interest under Sections 234B and 234C. 6. Initiation of penalty under Section 271(1)(c). Detailed Analysis: 1. Restriction of Deduction under Section 10B: The primary issue raised by the assessee was the restriction of the deduction under Section 10B of the Income Tax Act from Rs. 82,55,275/- to Rs. 24,98,330/-. The assessee, a private limited company engaged in accountancy outsourcing and IT infrastructure management services, claimed the deduction based on the profit and loss account and various adjustments, including a voluntary adjustment of Rs. 63,14,578/- for transactions with associated enterprises. 2. Adjustment to Arm's Length Price (ALP): The assessee voluntarily adjusted the transaction value with its associated enterprises by Rs. 63,14,578/- to comply with Section 92C of the Act. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed the deduction under Section 10B for this adjustment, arguing that the adjustment did not result in actual export of services or receipt of foreign exchange in India. The AO's decision was based on the interpretation that the voluntary adjustment did not qualify for deduction under Section 10B as there was no corresponding increase in foreign exchange earnings. 3. Applicability of Proviso to Section 92C(4): The AO relied on the proviso to Section 92C(4) to reject the deduction claimed under Section 10B. The assessee contended that this proviso applies only when the income is enhanced by the AO's determination of ALP, not to voluntary adjustments made by the assessee. This argument was supported by the decision of the ITAT Bangalore in the case of I Gate Global Solutions Ltd., which was later upheld by the Karnataka High Court. 4. Distinguishing the Decision of the Bangalore Tribunal: The CIT(A) and AO distinguished the decision of the Bangalore Tribunal in the case of I Gate Global Solutions Ltd., which was in favor of the assessee. The AO argued that the Tribunal's decision did not consider the legislative intent behind Section 10B. However, the Tribunal's decision was based on the interpretation that voluntary adjustments made by the assessee should be considered for deduction under Section 10B. 5. Levy of Interest under Sections 234B and 234C: The assessee also contested the levy of interest under Sections 234B and 234C of the Act. However, this issue was not elaborated upon in the judgment. 6. Initiation of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c): The initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) was also challenged by the assessee. Again, this issue was not detailed in the judgment. Tribunal's Decision: The Tribunal referred to the decision of the ITAT Bangalore and the Karnataka High Court in the case of I Gate Global Solutions Ltd., which held that voluntary adjustments by the assessee to determine ALP should be considered for deduction under Section 10B. The Tribunal noted that the AO's reliance on Section 92C(4) was misplaced, as this provision applies to adjustments made by the AO, not voluntary adjustments by the assessee. Consequently, the Tribunal reversed the orders of the lower authorities and directed the AO to allow the deduction under Section 10B as claimed by the assessee. The appeal was allowed in favor of the assessee. Conclusion: The appeal was allowed, and the Tribunal directed the AO to delete the addition made and allow the deduction under Section 10B as claimed by the assessee, following the precedent set by the Karnataka High Court in the case of I Gate Global Solutions Ltd. This order was pronounced in open court on 03/12/2018.
|
