2013 (12) TMI 8 - HC - Income Tax

Tribunal: Service income in India not excluded by 90% under Section 80HHE

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ACIT. Versus M/s ROBERT BOSCH (INDIA) LTD

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ACIT. Versus M/s ROBERT BOSCH (INDIA) LTD - TMI Issues Involved:1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the service income related to technical services rendered by the assessee-Company in India should not be excluded by 90% while computing eligible profits under Section 80HHE of the Income Tax Act, 1961.Detailed Analysis:1. Tribunal's Justification on Service Income and Section 80HHE:The central issue was whether the service income earned by the assessee-Company from technical services rendered in India should be excluded by 90% while computing eligible profits under Section 80HHE of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal held that the service income should not be excluded by 90%, as it formed an integral part of the business income and was not covered by Explanation (d) of Section 80HHE.2. Assessee's Business and Claim under Section 80HHE:The assessee was engaged in computer software exports, domestic sales, technical services in and outside India, and manufacturing and sale of fuel injection pumps. For the assessment years in question, the assessee claimed deductions under Section 80HHE. The Assessing Officer excluded 90% of the service income from the profits of the business, stating it was generated from services rendered in India and did not qualify under Section 80HHE.3. Appellate Authority's Reversal of Assessing Officer's Order:The Appellate Authority reversed the Assessing Officer's decision, noting that the service income was an integral part of the business income and not covered by Explanation (d) of Section 80HHE. The AA directed the Assessing Officer not to exclude 90% of the service income while allowing relief under Section 80HHE.4. Tribunal's Confirmation of Appellate Authority's Order:The Tribunal confirmed the AA's order, agreeing that there was no justification to exclude 90% of the service income. The service income was considered part of the business profits and not in the nature of brokerage, commission, interest, rent, or charges.5. Revenue's Argument Based on Supreme Court Judgment:The revenue argued, based on the Supreme Court's judgment in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. K. RAVINDRANATHAN NAIR, that 90% of receipts like brokerage, commission, interest, rent, charges, or any other receipt of a similar nature should be excluded from business profits as they have no nexus with exports. The revenue contended that the service income was independent and unrelated to export activities, and thus should be excluded by 90%.6. Assessee's Counter-Argument:The assessee argued that the service income was an integral part of its business and did not fall within the purview of Clause (d) (1) of the explanation to Section 80HHE. The assessee emphasized that the service income was not similar to brokerage, commission, interest, rent, or charges, and excluding it would render the formula for determining eligible profits under Section 80HHE(3) redundant.7. Court's Analysis of Precedents and Explanation (d):The court analyzed judgments from the Supreme Court and High Courts, including the Supreme Court's ruling in Ravindranathan Nair and the Bombay High Court's decision in PFIZER LIMITED. The court noted that receipts like brokerage, commission, interest, rent, or charges are independent incomes unrelated to export turnover and should be excluded by 90% to avoid distortion of export profits.8. Court's Conclusion on Service Income:The court concluded that the service income earned by the assessee from rendering services in India did not fall within the category of receipts similar to brokerage, commission, interest, rent, or charges. Therefore, it should not be excluded by 90% while computing eligible profits under Section 80HHE.Judgment:The court answered the question in favor of the assessee and against the revenue, stating that the service income should not be excluded by 90% while computing eligible profits under Section 80HHE. The appeal was disposed of accordingly, with no costs.