AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (6) TMI 167
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d in directing the AO to exclude the expenses incurred 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 do....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....x Rules 1962, requesting permission to file additional documents containing information on tax deducted at source, 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 qu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... First of all, we reproduce para No.7.5.3 of the order of Tribunal cited by learned AR of the assessee. This para reads as under. "7.5.3 The facts of the case on hand are also 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. First of all, we reproduce para No.8.4 from the Tribunal order cited by learned AR of the assessee. This para reads as under. "8.4 We have considered the rival contentions put forth on this issue. While 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. A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cts are not on record as to whether the assessee is 100% EOU or not. Therefore, we restore this matter back to the file of CIT (A) for fresh decision after examining the facts of the present case in the light of this judgment 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the order of the Assessing Officer disallowing deduction of Rs. 17,28,83,855/- u/s 10A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 1.1 On facts and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the order of the Assessing 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 appro....