TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether payment for renewal of software licence to a resident payee constituted royalty attracting deduction of tax at source and disallowance under section 40(a)(ia); (ii) whether foreign tax credit was confined to doubly taxed income and, if so, at what rate under section 115JB; (iii) whether disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D was sustainable in full; (iv) whether lapsed ESOPs were includible in book profits and taxable under the normal provisions; (v) whether telecommunication, internet and foreign currency expenses had to be excluded from both export turnover and total turnover, and whether onsite software service income qualified for deduction under section 10A; (vi) whether brought-forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation could be set off against business income, capital gains and income from other sources while computing section 10A deduction; (vii) whether interest under sections 234B and 234C could be levied in view of the retrospective amendment to section 115JB; and (viii) whether the ALP of interest received from an associated enterprise had to be benchmarked with EURIBOR.
Issue (i): Whether payment for renewal of software licence to a resident payee constituted royalty attracting deduction of tax at source and disallowance under section 40(a)(ia).
Analysis: The payment was for a right to use software under a licence arrangement. The Tribunal noted the conflicting views of the Karnataka and Delhi High Courts on whether such consideration is royalty, but held that the assessee, being within the jurisdiction of the Karnataka High Court, was bound by the jurisdictional view. The retrospective Explanation 4 to section 9(1)(vi) was treated as clarificatory and applicable to software licence payments. Since royalty was payable to a resident, tax had to be deducted under section 194J, and failure attracted disallowance under section 40(a)(ia).
Conclusion: Decided against the assessee.
Issue (ii): Whether foreign tax credit was confined to doubly taxed income and, if so, at what rate under section 115JB.
Analysis: Relief under section 90(1)(a)(i) was held available only for income taxed both in India and abroad, not for foreign taxes paid on income outside the doubly taxed pool. The Tribunal further held that the credit must match the tax attributable to such doubly taxed income under the MAT regime. It directed verification of the foreign tax rates in the relevant countries and held that credit could not exceed the tax attributable to the same income under section 115JB.
Conclusion: Decided partly in favour of the assessee and partly in favour of the Revenue.
Issue (iii): Whether disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D was sustainable in full.
Analysis: Interest disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) was deleted because the assessee's own funds were far in excess of investments, so no nexus with borrowed funds was established. For administrative expenditure under Rule 8D(2)(iii), the Tribunal held that only investments yielding exempt income could be considered for computing the disallowance and remitted the matter for fresh computation after verifying the suo motu disallowance already offered.
Conclusion: Decided partly in favour of the assessee.
Issue (iv): Whether lapsed ESOPs were includible in book profits and taxable under the normal provisions.
Analysis: Following the prior year's decision in the assessee's own case, the Tribunal held that amounts credited to general reserve on lapse of options could not be included in book profits under section 115JB. Such amount was, however, to be considered as income under section 41(1) in the year of cessation or remission.
Conclusion: Decided in favour of the assessee on section 115JB inclusion.
Issue (v): Whether telecommunication, internet and foreign currency expenses had to be excluded from both export turnover and total turnover, and whether onsite software service income qualified for deduction under section 10A.
Analysis: The Tribunal followed its earlier decisions to hold that whatever is excluded from export turnover must also be excluded from total turnover for computing section 10A deduction. It also held that foreign currency expenses were to be reduced from both turnover figures. Further, income from deputation of technical manpower and onsite development of computer software was held eligible for section 10A deduction.
Conclusion: Decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue on the turnover issue, and in favour of the assessee on onsite service income.
Issue (vi): Whether brought-forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation could be set off against business income, capital gains and income from other sources while computing section 10A deduction.
Analysis: Applying the principle that deduction under section 10A is to be computed unit-wise on a standalone basis, the Tribunal held that the eligible undertaking's profits have to be considered independently and that the treatment of losses of other units could not alter the deduction computation in the manner suggested by the Revenue.
Conclusion: Decided in favour of the assessee.
Issue (vii): Whether interest under sections 234B and 234C could be levied in view of the retrospective amendment to section 115JB.
Analysis: The Tribunal held that the amendment to section 115JB was retrospective and came after the end of the relevant financial year. Relying on binding jurisdictional precedent, it concluded that advance-tax interest could not be levied to the extent the demand arose only because of the retrospective MAT adjustment.
Conclusion: Decided in favour of the assessee.
Issue (viii): Whether the ALP of interest received from an associated enterprise had to be benchmarked with EURIBOR.
Analysis: Following earlier years' orders in the assessee's own case, the Tribunal accepted the use of EURIBOR plus an appropriate margin for benchmarking the international transaction of interest received.
Conclusion: Decided in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The appeals were disposed of by granting relief on several substantive issues, sustaining the royalty-related disallowance, and restoring part of the foreign tax credit and section 14A matters for limited verification or recomputation.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a jurisdictional High Court has authoritatively held software licence consideration to be royalty and a retrospective clarification confirms that right-to-use software falls within royalty, tax withholding and consequential disallowance follow; foreign tax relief is limited to income actually doubly taxed; and for section 10A, section 14A, and MAT-related computations, the statutory formula must be applied on the basis of the relevant eligible income or expenditure, not on a broader or artificial base.
TaxTMI 
