Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2020 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (1) TMI 1011 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 40(a) (ia) - paid vs payable in context of disallowance u/s 40(a) (ia) - HELD THAT:- The issue stands squarely covered against assessee by decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Palam Gas Services vs CIT [2017 (5) TMI 242 - SUPREME COURT]. Accordingly we allow these grounds raised by revenue. Computation of deduction u/s 10A - direction to reduce telecommunication charges from both export turnover as well as total turnover by Ld.CIT (A) for purposes of computation of deduction - HELD THAT:- Issue stands settled in favour of assessee by decision of Hon’able Supreme Court in case of CIT vs HCL Technologies Ltd. [2018 (5) TMI 357 - SUPREME COURT] wherein, it is been held that, expenses reduced from export turnover should also be reduced from total turnover while computing deduction under section 10A. Allowing deduction under section 10A before setting off brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, it has been submitted that this issue stands settled in favour of assessee by decision of Hon’able Supreme Court in case of CIT vs Yokogawa India Ltd [2016 (12) TMI 881 - SUPREME COURT] and CIT vs JP Morgan services India Pvt.Ltd. [2017 (5) TMI 640 - SC ORDER] wherein it has been held that deductions under section 10 A, 10 B should be allowed in respect of current year profits of the undertaking before setting off brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation. Deduction u/s 10A - Reduction of foreign currency expenses from export turnover - HELD THAT:- Assessee incurred expenditure in foreign currency in relation to sales and marketing activities, process study and analysis by experts of company who visit client location, expenditure incurred for providing training to employees of assessee in regard to business process of client. These services in our considered opinion cannot be considered to be one falling as defined in definition of “computer software” in Explanation 2 (i) to section 10A of the act. We are therefore unable to concur with arguments advanced byLd.AR. It is also observed that decisions relied upon by Ld.AR by Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court are on different set of facts and are of no assistance to assessee in present facts. However assessee cannot be denied benefit of exclusion of foreign currency expenses from total turnover as has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs HCL Technologies Ltd [2018 (5) TMI 357 - SUPREME COURT] Respectfully following the same, we direct Ld.AO to exclude foreign currency expenditure incurred by assessee from total turnover as well. Accordingly this ground raised by assessee stands dismissed. Addition on account of deferred revenue - HELD THAT:- Addition of deferred revenue is revenue neutral as corresponding increase in income has been treated as profit of business and deduction under section 10 A has been allowed by Ld.AO for assessment year 2007-08. He has also submitted that deferred revenue for assessment year under consideration has actually been recognised and accounted for as revenue for assessment year 2008-09 and the same has been considered in computing total income for assessment year 2008-09. It is observed that Ld.CIT (A) directed Ld.AO to verify the amount of ₹ 11,69,38,859/- from income for assessment year 2008-09. We therefore set aside this issue to Ld. AO for due verification as per direction and to consider claim of assessee as per law. Disallowance under section 14A having regards to Rule 8D (iii) - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, year under consideration is 2007-08 and Rule 8D has been prospectively implemented. Ld.AO thus erred in resorting to computation as per Rule 8D. However considering fact that assessee earned exempt income which do not form part of total income for the year under consideration and no suo moto disallowance has been made by assessee, we direct Ld.AO to restrict disallowance under section 14 A to the extent of ₹ 10,000 only. Disallowance of expenses under 40(a)(i) / 40(a)(ia) - HELD THAT:- Software payments are in the nature of 'royalty' and hence liable for TDS.See SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LTD. & OTHERS [2011 (10) TMI 195 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] Setting off loss from forward option contract while computing business income as against income from other sources contended by assessee - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, assessee is not a dealer in foreign exchange. What is necessary to be analysed is, dominant purpose for entering into forward contract and option contracts. As we analyse reply filed by assessee on query raised by Ld. AO(referred to herein above), it is observed that forward contract was entered into by assessee in respect of all 5 units as a whole, to hedge against currency fluctuation in respect of receipts (98%) in view of services rendered by assessee to USA and European countries. It has been submitted in written submission dated 16/07/19 by Ld.AR that such contract was entered into by assessee to safeguard its interest. It is very clear that loss has been incurred by assessee upon hedging transaction of export, being business activity carried on by assessee. We therefore do not find force in submissions made by Ld.AR regarding forward contract in foreign exchange partaking character of treasury operations. Forward contract has been entered by assessee in relation to business income and therefore any loss or gain earned by assessee on account of such contract would partake nature of business income. In our view merely because Assessing Officer in preceding years and some of succeeding assessment years has not observed the issue does not mean, same should be allowed to perpetuate. Any claim made by assessee has to be analysed having regard to law applicable. Further, decisions relied upon by assessee has been decided on a different context and are factually not similar or even seemingly identical with that of assessee. Accordingly, ratio laid down in these decisions are of no assistance to assessee under present factual matrix. Alternative plea of Ld.AR in considering such loss to be set off against profits of 10A units before allowing deduction under section 10A cannot be ignored. Accordingly, we direct Ld.AO to apportion such loss against the profits of STPI unit’s in ratio of turnover and to grant set of against such profit before computing deduction under section 10 A in respect of such unit. Brand building expenses claimed by assessee - nature of expenses - capital in nature OR revenue expenditure - HELD THAT:- In the present facts of case, assessee incurred such expenses in the process of an ongoing business activity and therefore it was not right on behalf of authorities below to hold such expenditure to be capital in nature. Direct Ld. AO to delete disallowance made. Foreign tax credit - HELD THAT:- As submitted that during the year assessee claimed foreign tax credit amounting to ₹ 1,10,183/-as double taxation relief under section 90 in the process of computing income tax. We direct Ld. AO to verify the same and allow the claim of assessee as per law. Accordingly this ground raised by assessee stands allowed.
|