2011 (7) TMI 526 - HC - Income Tax

Exemption u/s 10-A/10-B - Whether the Tribunal is justified in law in coming to the conclusion that the provisions of Section 80-O are parallel or pari materia to the provisions of Section 10-A and 10-B despite the fact that sub-section (3) of Section 10-A/10-B deal with sale proceeds of article or thing while Section 80-O deals with income - Held that - The income is received in India in convertible foreign exchange in a lawful and permissible manner through the premier institution concerned with the subject-matter - Reserve Bank of India - In this view held that the proceedings of the Central Board of Direct Taxes dated March 11 1986 declining to approve the agreements of the appellant with Sedgwick Offshore Resources Ltd. London for the purposes of section 80-O of the Income-tax Act are improper and illegal - further find that the words sale proceeds in Section 10-A would in the context also mean net proceeds if the goods were purchased from foreign buyers on credit - The explanation 1 and 2 to sub section (3) is not attracted in the present case - Thus the question of law raised by the appellant-department are covered by decision of the Supreme Court in J.B. Boda and Co. (P) Ltd vs. CBDT 1996 (10) TMI 70 - SUPREME Court - Appeals are dismissed assordingly.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of exemption under sections 10-A/10-B based on a Supreme Court judgment.
2. Compliance with provisions of subsection (3) of Section 10-A/10-B regarding repatriation of sale proceeds.
3. Comparison between provisions of Section 80-O and Sections 10-A/10-B regarding sale proceeds.

Issue 1 - Interpretation of Exemption under Sections 10-A/10-B:
The High Court considered whether the Tribunal was correct in granting exemption under sections 10-A/10-B based on a Supreme Court judgment related to Section 80-O. The department argued that the judgment was not applicable to the present case as it pertained to a different section. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision, stating that if the assessee received net proceeds in foreign exchange, the deduction under Section 10-A should not be denied. The Court found that the principle from the Supreme Court's judgment was applicable to Section 10-A, allowing deductions based on net proceeds even if goods were purchased on credit.

Issue 2 - Compliance with Subsection (3) of Section 10-A/10-B:
The Assessing Officer contended that the assessee did not comply with subsection (3) of Section 10-A, which required repatriation of sale proceeds in convertible foreign exchange. The assessee imported gold bars on credit, converted them into jewelry, and exported them. The Court noted that the assessee received net amounts in foreign exchange and credited them to the bank account, claiming exemption based on this income. The Court found that the explanation provided in subsection (3) was not applicable in this case as the assessee received net proceeds in foreign exchange.

Issue 3 - Comparison between Section 80-O and Sections 10-A/10-B:
The department argued that the provisions of Section 80-O were different from Sections 10-A/10-B, emphasizing the requirement to bring in India all sale proceeds in convertible foreign exchange. The Court analyzed the distinction between the sections and concluded that the principle for allowing deductions remained the same in both cases. The Court held that the questions raised by the department were covered by the Supreme Court's decision in J.B. Boda and Co. (P) Ltd vs. CBDT, confirming the dismissal of all Income Tax Appeals.

In summary, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to grant exemption under sections 10-A/10-B based on the Supreme Court's judgment, emphasizing the relevance of net proceeds in foreign exchange. The Court clarified the compliance requirements of subsection (3) of Section 10-A and highlighted the similarity in principles between Section 80-O and Sections 10-A/10-B regarding deductions.