2020 (6) TMI 167
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed in foreign currency outside India, from total turnover of the assessee." 2. "The appellant craves for reserving the right to amend, modify, alter, add or forego any ground(s) of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of appeal". 2. In the course of hearing, learned DR of the Revenue supported the Assessment Order whereas it is submitted by learned AR of the assessee that this issue is now covered in favour of the assessee by the judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of Tata Elxsi Ltd. as reported in 349 ITR 98. 3. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that as per the grounds raised by the Revenue as reproduced above, this is the grievance of the Revenue that learned CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to exclude the expenses incurred in foreign currency outside India from the total turnover of the assessee for computing deduction allowable u/s 10A. On this issue, it was held by Hon'ble Karnataka High Court that total turnover is sum total of domestic turnover and export turnover. Therefore, if an amount is reduced from export turnover, then total turnover also goes down by the same amount automatically. In view of this, we find t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urce, in light of the fact that the Appellant was unable to file the documents before the Assessing Officer as no further documents were requested nor any opportunity given to the Appellant to produce the documents. 3.2 The CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the disallowance of Rs. 3,52,94,615/- on the ground of nondeduction of tax. 3.3 The CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the Appellant was not liable to deduct tax on the export commission to the tune of Rs. 66,84,504/- as they were not taxable in India. 3.4 The CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that as required by law, the appellant obtained certificates from Chartered Accountant that payments made for procurement of export orders were not chargeable to tax in India hence no tax was required to be deducted before remittance especially in light of the fact that no finding has been given by the CIT(A) that the income of persons receiving commission for export sales is taxable in India and that when genuineness of the payments and the certificates for nondeduction of tax is not in question, there is no reason to uphold the disallowance. 3.5 The CIT (A) has erred in upholding the order of the Assessing Officer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lso similar to the aforesaid case of Wipro Ltd., (supra). The assessee has made exports and certain foreign remittances on export sales have not been received within the specified time limit of six (6) months and application for extension of time for receiving such foreign remittances have been filed with the authorized bankers and the applications have not been rejected. However, the foreign exchange remittances have been received and credited to the assessee's account. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Wipro Ltd., (supra), we also hold that notwithstanding the fact that there is no express order granting approval by the authorized bankers extending the time limit of six months for receipt of foreign remittances on account of export sales, the assessee is entitled to the benefit of deduction under section 10A of the Act and consequently direct the AO, that those amounts, though realized belatedly, shall be included in the export turnover while computing the deduction under section 10A of the Act. Consequently, ground No.3.1 of the assessee's appeal is allowed." 8. In this para, the Tribunal has followed the judgme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hile the assessee has given some break-up of details of expenses incurred in foreign currency, the details do not establish that all of these expenses were not incurred for rendering technical services outside India; as claimed by the assessee. In the absence of details, the issue is only academic. Further, we do not consider it necessary to adjudicate on issue which is academic in nature, as the CIT(A) has addressed the assessee's grievance and allowed the alternate claim of the assessee on this issue. Consequently, ground No.4 raised by the assessee is dismissed as academic." 11. As per above para reproduced from the Tribunal order cited by learned AR of the assessee, we find that in that year, the Tribunal had rejected this claim of the assessee that expenditure incurred in foreign currency should not be reduced from export turnover. Respectfully following the same, in this year also, this issue is decided against the assessee. Ground No.2 is rejected. 12. As per Ground No. 3, the issue involved is regarding upholding the exclusion of Rs. 2,76,86,054/- from eligible business profits for the purposes of computing deduction u/s 10A on the ground that the amount was profit from t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Hewlett Packard Global Soft Ltd. (supra) after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to both sides. Accordingly, ground No.3 is allowed for statistical purposes. 15. Now we decide Ground No. 4 as per which, this is the grievance of the assessee that the CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 3,52,94,615/- by relying on his own order for Assessment Year 2009-10 since the facts are different and the heads under which the expenditure disallowed has been incurred were different from those in Assessment Year 2009-10. On this issue, learned AR of the assessee submitted that as per para No.10 of the same Tribunal order in assessee's own case for Assessment Years 2010-11 and 2011-12, this issue is covered in favour of the assessee. Learned DR of the revenue supported the order of AO and CIT (A). 16. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that as per this ground No.4, this is the grievance of the assessee that CIT(A) was not justified in deciding this issue by following its own order for Assessment Year 2009-10 because the facts in the present year are different. We find ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing Officer reducing Rs. 26,05,82,985/- from export sales on the ground of non-realization for the purposes of computing deduction u/s 10A. 1.2 That the CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that the Appellant had already filed applications for extension of time for realizing export sales of Rs. 20,23,79,275. 1.3 That the CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that export proceeds of Rs. 5,82,03,710/- were duly received by the Appellant and it was permitted to receive the same by RBI/Authorized Dealer which should be read as implicit approval of extension of time for collection of export proceeds for the purposes of deduction under section 10A. 1.4 That the CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that it is settled law that if no communication is received to a request made to a statutory authority or its nominee, the request is deemed to be allowed. The CIT(A) has erred in not realizing that even if no explicit approvals were received from the RBI/ Authorized Dealer, it has to be read as implicit approval since no communication has been forthcoming. In light of the implicit approval, the CIT(A) has erred in upholding the exclusion from export proceeds on the ground of non- realization. ....