Tribunal Upholds CIT(A) on SEZ and STPI Units' Foreign Exchange Losses as Revenue Expenditure

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. It ruled that unrealized foreign exchange losses for both SEZ and STPI units should be treated as revenue expenditure. Additionally, it held that the SEZ unit's loss cannot be set off against the STPI unit's profit for computing deductions under section 10A. The Tribunal referenced Bombay High Court judgments to support these conclusions.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of unrealized foreign exchange loss for SEZ unit.
2. Disallowance of unrealized foreign exchange loss for STPI unit.
3. Deduction of foreign exchange loss for STPI unit as revenue expenditure.
4. Set-off of SEZ unit loss against STPI unit profit before allowing deduction under section 10A.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance of Unrealized Foreign Exchange Loss for SEZ Unit:
The Revenue contested the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance of Rs. 1,35,46,050/- of unrealized foreign exchange loss for the SEZ unit. The Assessing Officer (AO) had disallowed this loss, considering it contingent and notional since it was based on the reinstatement of the ECB loan in foreign currency. The CIT(A) referenced the Supreme Court's judgment in CIT vs. Woodward Governor India Ltd., which established that such losses are not contingent or notional but real and allowable. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the Revenue failed to provide a cogent distinction in law or facts to counter this precedent.

2. Disallowance of Unrealized Foreign Exchange Loss for STPI Unit:
The AO disallowed Rs. 73,83,330/- of foreign exchange loss for the STPI unit, arguing it was capital in nature since the ECB loan was used for asset acquisition, thus falling under section 43A. The CIT(A) rejected this, stating section 43A applies only to assets acquired from outside India, whereas the assets in question were acquired domestically. The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A), noting the AO's failure to contest the factual matrix that the assets were purchased within India.

3. Deduction of Foreign Exchange Loss for STPI Unit as Revenue Expenditure:
The AO had disallowed the foreign exchange loss on the grounds that it was capital in nature, related to the acquisition of assets. The CIT(A), however, treated the loss as revenue expenditure, relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in Woodward Governor India Ltd., which supports the treatment of such losses as revenue in nature under the mercantile system of accounting. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A), emphasizing that the loss was not contingent or notional and should be treated as revenue expenditure.

4. Set-off of SEZ Unit Loss Against STPI Unit Profit Before Allowing Deduction Under Section 10A:
The AO had restricted the deduction under section 10A by setting off the SEZ unit's loss against the STPI unit's profit. The CIT(A) ruled that each unit should be treated independently, and the SEZ unit's loss should not be set off against the STPI unit's profit for computing the deduction under section 10A. The Tribunal upheld this view, citing the Bombay High Court judgments in CIT vs. Black And Veatch Consulting Pvt. Ltd. and CIT vs. Techno Trap and Polymers Pvt. Ltd., which clarified that deductions under section 10A should be computed before applying provisions for set-off and carry forward of losses under Chapter VI-A.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s decisions on all grounds. The foreign exchange losses for both SEZ and STPI units were to be treated as revenue expenditure, and the SEZ unit's loss should not be set off against the STPI unit's profit when computing deductions under section 10A. The judgments of the Bombay High Court were pivotal in these determinations.

---