9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (7) TMI 1132 - AT - Income TaxDeduction under section 10A denied - as per AO or the assessment year 2009-10, the assessee itself did not consider the receivables of ₹ 37,75,28,906 for the purpose of claim of deduction under section 10A, hence, granting of deduction u/s 10A on such amount does not arise - CIT(A) allowed the claim - Held that - The issue in the present case before us is that the gross bills raised by the assessee are paid by the foreign clients in convertible foreign exchange and then only the assessee makes the payment to the foreign client from the same amount which in accounting terms is known as setting off or netting off. Since the same is done with the approval of the Reserve Bank of India the assessee is only to claim deduction under section 10A of the Act on the total amount of gross bills raised by the assessee as the same was received in convertible foreign exchange. The issue in the present appeal is similar to that of J. B. Boda and Co. Pvt. Ltd. 1996 (10) TMI 70 - SUPREME Court and, therefore, we find no infirmity in the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in following the judgment of the hon ble Supreme Court and the same is upheld. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
1. Claim of deduction under section 10A on additional amount not allowed by Assessing Officer. 2. Validity of revised computation for claiming deduction under section 10A. 3. Interpretation of gross receipts and net receipts for the purpose of deduction under section 10A. 4. Entitlement to claim deduction under section 10A without revised return. 5. Applicability of legal precedents in determining eligibility for deduction under section 10A. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of deduction under section 10A on an additional amount of Rs. 37,75,28,906 due to non-receipt of permission from the Reserve Bank of India. The appellant argued that delay in obtaining permission was due to a survey operation by the Department, and the revised computation was validly made post the time for filing revised returns. Issue 2: The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld the appellant's claim, emphasizing that the enhanced deduction under section 10A was lawful, even though not originally claimed in the return. Citing legal precedents, the Commissioner directed the Assessing Officer to allow the deduction on the additional amount. Issue 3: The Commissioner observed that the entire gross amount received from foreign clients, net of expenses, should be considered for deduction under section 10A. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in J. B. Boda and Co. Pvt. Ltd., it was held that the netting off of exports against imports is permissible for claiming the deduction. Issue 4: The appellant contended that the claim for deduction under section 10A was statutory and could be entertained by appellate authorities without a revised return. The Commissioner agreed, noting that the appellant's explanation for the delay in claiming the deduction was satisfactory. Issue 5: The judgment relied on legal precedents, such as J. B. Boda and Co. Pvt. Ltd., to support the appellant's entitlement to claim the deduction under section 10A based on the gross bills received in convertible foreign exchange. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, finding no infirmity in following the Supreme Court's judgment. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appellant's appeal, upholding the Commissioner's decision to grant the deduction under section 10A on the additional amount. The judgment emphasized the legality of the claim, the applicability of legal precedents, and the interpretation of gross receipts for the deduction purpose.
|
