TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (10) TMI 760
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....impugned order dated 25 August 2016 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, (Tribunal). 2. Mr.Kotangale learned counsel appearing in support of the Appeals seeks liberty to change the name of the Respondent to its present name i.e. Concentrix Services India Private Limited. Amendment as sought for allowed. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. Re-verification dispensed with. 3. These two appeals under section 260A of the Income Tax Act challenge the common order dated 25 August 2016 passed by the Tribunal. The common impugned order dated 25 August 2016 allowed the Respondent-assessee's two appeals relating to Assessment Year 2008-09 and 2009-10. Thus the two appeals. 4. The Revenue urges the following three identical questions of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ngale learned counsel appearing in support of the appeals very fairly states that both these questions stand concluded against Revenue and in favour of Respondent-assessee in the Respondent's own case by the order of this Court dated 4 September2019 in ITXA No.303 of 2006 (Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-10 Mumbai vs Couceutrix Services India Pvt. Ltd. [formerly known as Minacs Pvt. Ltd.]). Both these questions on identical facts have been decided in favour of the Respondent-assessee. (b) It is not the case of the Revenue, that there is any distinction in facts and/or law in the subject Assessment years, which would make order dated 4 September 2019 in ITXA No.303 of 2006 inapplicable to this case. (c) In the above vi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he CIT(A) both the Revenue as well as the Respondent-assessee filed appeals for the Assessment Year 2009-10 and 2008-09 respectively, before the Tribunal. d) The Tribunal by the common impugned order disposed of both appeals as the issue is identical. It found on facts that the Respondent-assessee wanted to expand its business operations in North America and European countries. For the purpose of extension of its business in the above countries it had three ways available to it i.e. set up a branch in those countries or to form new companies in those countries or acquire a company operating in those countries in the similar line of business. It was the business decision of the Respondent-assessee to opt for the third method as indi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Assessing Officer sought to deny the same. This the Tribunal found went against principles of consistency and therefore held that the loss/expenditure on account of finance expenses was allowable. It was in the aforesaid circumstances that the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the Respondent-assessee for the Assessment Year 2008-09 and dismissed the Revenue's appeal for the Assessment Year 2009-10. (e) Mr.Kotangale, learned counsel appearing in support of the Appeal states that the interest payment on the loan and finance expenditure on account of foreign exchange variations in the loan repayment could not have been allowed as business expenditure. This in view of the fact that the Respondent is not in the business of investmen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en interest will have to be allowed as a deduction. The submission on behalf of the Revenue that the Petitioner is in the business of BPO and Call Centre activities and not in the business of investment means the prime business of the assessee is of running BPO and Call Centres and as recorded by the Tribunal the entire funds were borrowed so as to expand the business activities of BPO and Call Centres in Canada by acquiring a Canadian Company. Thus the loan was taken for the purpose of business. This is a finding of fact which has not been shown to be perverse. The expansion of ones activities in Canada would require acquisition of a Company by purchasing shares therein so as to expand the assessee's business. The object of the expendi....