AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) 
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (1) TMI 1084
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... - STPI unit of Rs. 7, 460, 124. 2. the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in holding that since section 10A of the Act provides for an 'exemption', the losses, if any incurred by units eligible for benefit under section 10A should be treated as losses from a ' source exempt from tax' and therefore, is eligible for set off against Non- STPI income. 3. the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in holding that a declaration under section 10A(8) making the claim of deduction under section 10A is a pre- requisite for allowing set off of losses from the STPI unit against income from a Non- STPI unit. While doing so, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has inter- alia erred in not following the decision of jurisdictional Tribunal in the case of Moser Bear India V JCIT [2951TR 148 (Delhi ATJ)]. 4. the Hon'ble CIT (A) has erred in not applying the various precedents cited by the Appellant (including that of Jurisdictional Tribunal) wherein, in identical circumstances, the Tribunals have allowed setting off losses of STPI units against the profits of Non-STPI units. 5. the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in not directing the Learned AO to allow set off of brought fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n CBDT has come out with the circular no. 7/DV/2013 [FILE NO.279/MISC./M-116/2012-ITJ], DATED 16-7-2013 where in it is directed that If after aggregation of income in accordance with the provisions of sections 70 and 71 of the Act, the resultant amount is a loss (pertaining to assessment year 2001-02 and any subsequent year) from eligible unit it shall be eligible for carry forward and set off in accordance with the provisions of section 72 of the Act. Similarly, if there is a loss from an ineligible unit, it shall be carried forward and may be set off against the profits of eligible unit or ineligible unit as the case may be, in accordance with the provisions of section 72 of the Act. Therefore in view of this circular the assessee is eligible for of set off losses of STPI unit against the profit of non - STPI unit of Rs. 5.490, 557. He further submitted that this circular is the accepted position by CBDT and therefore despite the decision of Honourable Delhi High court deciding otherwise the assessee is eligible for claim of the set off this loss of STPI unit against the profits of Non-eligible units. To strengthen his argument he also took us through various paragraphs of the ci....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... provisions, "it is still possible to invoke the sub-section and ensure that the assessee does not obtain a deduction in respect of the exempted income under any other provision of the Act. The only object of the sub-section is to ensure that there is no double benefit arising to the assessee in respect of the same income." 14. In this case, this court is of the opinion that TEI Technologies (P.) Ltd. (supra) applies. The tax-exempt income of the assessee, eligible under Section 10-B could not have been set off against the losses from tax-liable income." 10. However subsequent to that decision CBDT has come out with the circular dated 16/07/2013 which provides as under :- "SECTION 10A, READ WITH SECTIONS 10AA & 10B OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 - FREE TRADE ZONE - CLARIFICATION ON ISSUES RELATING TO APPLICABILITY OF CHAPTER IV OF THE ACT AND SET OFF AND CARRY FORWARD OF BUSINESS LOSSES CIRCULAR NO. 7/DV/2013 [FILE NO.279/MISC./M-116/2012-ITJ], DATED 16-7-2013 It has been brought to the notice of the Board that the provisions of 10A/10AA/10B/10BA of the Income-tax Act, with regard to applicability of Chapter IV of the Act and set off and carry forward of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he effect of the substitution of sections 10A and 10B of the Act has been elaborated in Circular No. 794 dated 9.8.2000 which clearly provides that the new provisions provide for deduction in respect of profits and gains derived by an undertaking from export of articles or things or computer software. 4. Sub-section (6) of sections 10A and 10B were amended by Finance Act, 2003 with retrospective effect from 1-4-2001. Circular No. 7/2003, dated 5-9-2003 explains the amendments brought by Finance Act, 2003. The relevant paragraph is reproduced below: "20. Providing for carry forward of business losses and unabsorbed depreciation to units in Special Economic Zones and 100% Export Oriented Units. 20.1 Under the existing provisions of sections 10A and 10B, the undertakings operating in a Special Economic Zone (under section 10A) and 100% Export Oriented Units (EOU's) (under section 10B) are not permitted to carry forward their business losses and unabsorbed depreciation. 20.2 With a view to rationalize the existing tax incentives in respect of such units, sub-section (6) in sections 10A and 10B has been amended to do away with the restrictions on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 5.3 If after aggregation of income in accordance with the provisions of sections 70 and 71 of the Act, the resultant amount is a loss (pertaining to assessment year 2001-02 and any subsequent year) from eligible unit it shall be eligible for carry forward and set off in accordance with the provisions of section 72 of the Act. Similarly, if there is a loss from an ineligible unit, it shall be carried forward and may be set off against the profits of eligible unit or ineligible unit as the case may be, in accordance with the provisions of section 72 of the Act. 6. The provisions of Chapter IV and Chapter VI shall also apply in computing the income for the purpose of deduction under sections 10AA and 10BA of the Act subject to the conditions specified in the said sections." 11. On conjoint reading of the circular, it is apparent that regarding claim of set off losses of eligible unit against the profits of non-eligible units and loss of non-eligible unit against the profits of eligible units' different interpretation are made by assessing officer as well as various high courts. Therefore, to set the controversy at rest CBDT issued this circular as guidance to its ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the circular was considered as issued for the purpose of proper administration of the provisions of section 12(1B) and the court did not look upon this circular as being in conflict with section 12(1B). A similar view of the Central Board of Direct Taxes circulars has been taken in the case of K. P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597, by a Bench of two judges consisting of P. N. Bhagwati and E. S. Venkataramiah, JJ. The Bench has held that circulars of the Central Board of Direct Taxes are legally binding on the Revenue and this binding character attaches to the circulars even if they be found not in accordance with the correct interpretation of the section and they depart or deviate from such construction. Citing the decision of Navnit Lal (C.) Javeri v. K. K. Sen, AAC [1965] 56 ITR 198 (SC), this court observed that circulars issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes under section 119 of the Act are binding on all officers and persons employed in the execution of the Act even if they deviate from the provisions of the Act. In Keshavji Ravji and Co. v. CIT [1990] 183 ITR 1, a Bench of three judges of this court has also taken the view that circulars beneficial to the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....T [1986] 158ITR 102, decided by a Bench of three judges of this court by a majority of two to one. This judgment directly deals with interest on "sticky advances" which have been debited to the customer but taken to the interest suspense account by a banking company. The majority judgment has referred to the circular of October 6, 1952, and its withdrawal by the second circular of June 20, 1978. The majority appears to have proceeded on the basis that by the second circular of June 20, 1978, the Central Board had directed that interest in the suspense account on "sticky" advances should be includible in the taxable income of the assessee and all pending cases should be disposed of keeping these instructions in view. The subsequent circular of October 9, 1984, by which, from the assessment year 1979-80 the banking companies were given the benefit of the circular of October 9, 1984, does not appear to have been pointed out to the court. What was submitted before the court was, that since such interest had been allowed to be exempted for more than half a century, the practice had transformed itself into law and this position should not have been deviated from. Negativing this contenti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8 ITR 102 (SC), cannot be looked upon as laying down that a circular which is properly issued under section 119 of the Income-tax Act for proper administration of the Act and for relieving the rigour of too literal a construction of the law for the benefit of the assessee in certain situations would not be binding on the departmental authorities. This would be contrary to the ratio laid down by the Bench of five judges in Navnit Lal (C.) Javeri v. K. K. Sen [1965] 56 ITR 198 (SC). In fact State Bank of Tranvancore v. CIT [1986] 158 ITR 102 (SC), has already been distinguished in the case of Keshavji Ravji and Co. v. CIT [1990] 183 ITR 1 (SC), by a Bench of three judges in a similar fashion. It is held only as laying down that a circular cannot alter the provisions of the Act. It being in the nature of a concession, could always be prospectively withdrawn. In the present case, the circulars which have been in force are meant to ensure that while assessing the income accrued by way of interest on a "sticky" loan, the notional interest which is transferred to a suspense account pertaining to doubtful loans would not be included in the income of the assessee, if for three years such in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6] 158 ITR 102 (SC), held that interest which had accrued on a "sticky" advance has to be treated as income of the assessee and taxable as such. It is said that ultimately, if the advance takes the shape of a bad debt, refund of the tax paid on the interest would become due and the same can be claimed by the assessee in accordance with law. For reasons set out above, we are not in agreement with the said judgment. The relevant circulars of the Central Board of Direct Taxes cannot be ignored. The question is not whether a circular can override or detract from the provisions of the Act ; the question is whether the circular seeks to mitigate the rigour of a particular section for the benefit of the assessee in certain specified circumstances. So long as such a circular is in force it would be binding on the departmental authorities in view of the provisions of section 119 to ensure a uniform and proper administration and application of the Income-tax Act. 13. Earlier to the above circular, it has been held by Honourable Bombay high court in case of Hindustan lever Limited V DCIT 325 ITR 102 (Bom) thatloss in eligible unit could be set off against the profits of the business. It is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....chnology India is the exporter and NEC System Technologies Ltd. Japan is the buyer and the source of payment or income of the non-resident is India. 3. Whether on the facts & in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that since the assessee has incurred outsourcing expenses in the nature of fees for technical services and since the income is chargeable to tax in India within the meaning of Sec. 40(a) (i) of the Act, TDS must be deducted on such payments as per the requirement of Sec. 195 of the Act. 16. Brief facts of appeal of revenue are that Assessee Company was incorporated on October 31, 2005 as a joint venture between HCL Technologies Ltd., India, NEC System Technologies Ltd., Japan and NEC Corporation, Japan. In terms of the Joint Venture Agreement entered between HCL Technologies Limited, NEC Systems Technologies Ltd and NEC Corporation representing NEC Group, it was agreed that the assessee is being established for the purpose of providing offshore centric software engineering services and solutions to NEC Group and its subsidiaries. On December 12, 2005 the assessee established a branch office in Japan ('Japan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ourcing cost paid to a non resident company is covered within the provisions of section 9(1)(vii) fees for technical services, however, the same is covered by the exception carved out by section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act because expenses are incurred in foreign currency for availing facilities/ services for its branch in Japan which are utilized by the Japan BO for carrying out its business outside India. The Learned AO rejected the contentions of assessee that such expenses are covered by the exception carved out by section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act and disallowed the outsourcing cost in accordance with the provisions of section 40(a) (i) on account of the fact that tax had not been withheld on the said payment. While reaching to this conclusion, the Learned AO observed that the a. Branch had no independent identity, b. the outsourcing activity was undertaken by the assessee from India, c. the Japan BO does not undertake the sub -contracting activity; d. the Japan BO is merely an extension of the Indian Company e. in the agreement entered into with NEC Corporation, there is no reference to the Japan BO; f. merely because invoices h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e or arise in India and therefore tax is required to be deducted. He further submitted that all services are rendered in India and therefore income has accrued to the recipient in India and hence there is failure to deduct tax at sources of this amount by the assessee. He further argued that for the reason stated by AO at page no 18 and 1 of the assessment order the work was not carried on by the Japan branch of the assessee but it was carried out in India. He further attempted to support this argument by drawing our attention to page no 49 of the paper book where details of the staff employed by the Japan branch is given stating that this staff were not capable of doing the work. Therefore, he submitted that the assessee failed to deduct tax at sources on this payment and hence disallowance u/s 40a (i) may be confirmed. 19. Ld. AR submitted that the facts of the case stated by CIT (A) at page no 10 to 13 of his order clearly shows the facts of the case which clearly proves that assessee' s case falls under the exceptions carved out by clause (b) of section 9 (1) (vii) of the Income tax Act. 20. He further submitted that at para no 3.3 at page no 14 of the order of CIT (A) cl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....activities of the BO of the assessee in Japan. Further, after obtaining the work by Japan BO it was outsourced to HCL Japan Limited to whom these payments are made by Japan BO. Ld. AO has lost sight of the fact that Japan BO has not fully executed the work but it was outsourced to HCL Japan Limited. Ld AO has also lost sight of the nature of work being carried out by Japan BO. The customers of NEC HCL India are NEC Corporation and its group companies based outside India. For procurement of projects from these customers, Japan BO undertakes sales and marketing activities for NEC HCL India to bid for the projects. It is pertinent to note that the staff of the branch office has the benefit of knowing the local language and hence are well equipped to undertake business development in Japan for the assessee company. Japan BO acts as a point of contact between the customers and NEC HCL India. Therefore actual work carried out by Japan BO staff is business development activities of obtaining the client and for this assessee has demonstrated that it has adequate staff for carrying on such work. As per details furnished Japan BO had 5 employees as sales managers for carrying out sales and m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....financial statements of the japan branch are required to be incorporated in the financial statements of the assessee company to complete the accounts of the assessee company. Merely because of this reason, it cannot be said that the expense of Fees for technical services are borne out by the assessee and not by Japan BO of the assessee. Therefore we fully agree with the reasoning of CIT (A) that the payments of fees for technical services borne by the Japan BO of the assessee is not subject to withholding tax u/s 195 of the Income tax act because there is no income deemed to accrue or arise in India in the hands of recipient of such fees. Ld. AR of the assessee has further relied up on the decision of the Honourable Delhi high court where in the provisions of section 9 (1) (vii) (b) were considered as under :- "In this context, we may fruitfully refer to the dictionary meaning of 'consultation' in Black's Law Dictionary, eighth edition. The word 'consultation' has been defined as an act of asking the advice or opinion of someone (such as a lawyer). It means a meeting in which a party consults or confers and eventually it results in human interaction tha....