TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 1240X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... RA. In other words, deduction u/s.80-0 is available for export of much higher skills which can quality as a design or even better an invention, or they should be capable of being patented or registered as trade-marks. It is not available for ordinary export of skills - assessee has not supplied any design or not used any intellectual property. The learned counsel had emphasised that assessee had provided technical know-how but there is nothing on record to show that assessee was in possession of any technical know-how, assessee was merely providing technical services or some kind of software for which deduction is not available u/s.80-O. Therefore, in case of Ontrack Systems Ltd. (2006 (10) TMI 206 - ITAT MADRAS-B) also, the fact was that assessee had provided services of designing the website that is why deduction was held to be allowable, assessee is not entitle for deduction u/s.80-O. Against assessee. - I.T.A. No.: 6242/Mum/2009, I.T.A. No.: 6243/Mum/2009 - - - Dated:- 4-3-2011 - ORDER Per T.R. Sood (AM): These appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the order dated 18.09.2009 of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-32, Mumbai and relates to the assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... chnical know-how, which is the case for availing deduction u/s.8ORRA. In other words, deduction u/s.80-0 is available for export of much higher skills which can quality as a design or even better an invention, or they should be capable of being patented or registered as trade-marks. It is not available for ordinary export of skills. 5.9 Having said so, it is now important to examine the operations of the appellant to determine whether these would fall within the structure provided for claiming the deduction /s.80-0. When the Ld. AR of the appellant was asked to give the details of activities of the appellant it was stated that the appellant is an individual who is a qualified Electronics Engineer specializing in laser technology. As per the appellant s own admission given in the statement of facts filed along with the appeal, the appellant has been rendering technical service to his local as well as foreign enterprises. The appellant claims to have received remuneration from foreign enterprises in lieu of technical services for innovative ideas given to his customers. When the Ld. AR was probed further to note the exact nature of the activity, my attention was drawn to page 15 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s.80 RRA has been rightly denied by the learned CIT (Appeals). He further referred to section 80-0 and submitted that the provision for deduction envisaged is in the nature of royalty or where assessee is owner of some kind of intellectual property, whereas assessee has only given software and other technical services as mentioned in para 5.9 of the learned CIT (Appeals) order. 10. We have considered the rival submission carefully. As far as the claim of deduction 80 RRA is concerned the relevant portions of the section reads as under:- 80RRA (1) Where the gross total income of an individual who is a citizen of India includes any remuneration received by him in foreign currency from any employer (being a foreign employer or an Indian concern) for any service rendered by him outside India, there shall, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this section, be allowed, in computing the total income of the individual, [a deduction from such remuneration of an amount equal to - (i) sixty per cent of such remuneration for an assessment year beginning on the 1st day of April, 2001: (ii) forty five per cent of such remuneration for an assessment year beginning on the 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l services have not been granted, obviously then assessee is not entitled for deduction u/s.80RRA. The Tribunal cannot go beyond its scope to hold that CBDT was not correct in refusing the permission for which assessee could have taken appropriate steps before the Hon ble High Court. In the light of this discussion we are of the view that assessee is not entitle for deduction u/s.80 RRA. 12. As far as deduction u/s.80 0 is concerned it reads as under:- Deduction in respect of royalties, etc. from certain foreign enterprises. 80-0 [Where the gross total income of an assessee, being an Indian company [or a person (other than a company) who is resident in India]], includes [any income received by the assessee from the Government of a foreign State or foreign enterprise in consideration for the use oustside India of any patent, invention, design or registered trade mark] [and such income is received in convertible foreign exchange in India, or having been received in convertible foreign exchange outside India, or having been converted into convertible foreign exchange outside India, is brought into India, by or on behalf of the assessee in accordance with any law for the time ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, in accordance with any law for the time being in force regulating payments and dealings in foreign exchange. The deduction that is allowed is in terms of the provisions of section 80-0, and varies from the question of law that has been framed by the Revenue, it appears that the contention is that the assessee was providing professional services and could not be regarded as the owner of intellectual property. There is no merit in the submission. The income in respect of which a deduction is claimed under section 80-0 was not income, generally speaking received for rendering professional services outside India. The income which was received was specifically in consideration for use outside India of the designs which were supplied by the assessee. For the purposes of section 80-0, use that is made outside India may be single or multiple uses, which may vary upon the facts and circumstances of each case. So long as the use has taken place outside India and the payment which is received in convertible foreign exchange INS in India for the use of intellectual property of the stated description outside India, the benefit of the deduction would have to be granted. The assessee had prepa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
