2012 (5) TMI 388 - HC - Income Tax

Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that when computing relief u/s 10-A the expenditure incurred by the assessee should not form part of the total turnover and as such it should be excluded from the total turnover if the same are reduced from export turnover - In the case of the CIT v. Tata Elxsi Ltd. 2011 -TMI - 210706 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT wherein it was held that ITO v. Sak Soft Ltd.(2009 -TMI - 70680 - ITAT MADRAS-D), There should be uniformity in the ingredients of both the numerator and the denominator of the formula, Section 10-A is a beneficial section. It is intended to provide incentives to promote exports. If the export turnover in the numerator is to be arrived at after excluding certain expenses, the same should also be excluded in computing the export turnover as a component of total turnover in the denominator - Decided in favor of the assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 10-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 regarding the treatment of expenditure incurred by the assessee in computing relief.

Analysis:
The High Court considered the question of whether the Tribunal was correct in excluding the expenditure incurred by the assessee from the total turnover when computing relief under Section 10-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court referred to a previous case, CIT v. Tata Elxsi Ltd., where it was established that there should be uniformity in the components of both the numerator and the denominator of the formula used for calculating export profits under Section 10-A. The Court emphasized that Section 10-A is a beneficial provision intended to promote exports by providing incentives to exempt profits related to exports. It was clarified that in cases where an assessee has both export and domestic business, the formula for ascertaining export profits involves apportioning total profits based on turnovers. The Court highlighted that the export turnover should be treated consistently in both the numerator and the denominator of the formula, ensuring that any expenses excluded from the export turnover are also excluded when computing the total turnover. This approach was deemed necessary to align with the legislative intent behind Section 10-A and to avoid anomalies in the calculation process.

The Court emphasized that the interpretation of the term "total turnover" in Section 10-A should be in line with the context in which it is used and should respect the meaning assigned by the legislature to the export turnover. The formula for computing the deduction under Section 10-A was outlined by the Court, which involved considering the profits of the business of the undertaking multiplied by the ratio of export turnover to the total turnover (comprising both export and domestic turnover). The Court concluded that based on the legal position established through precedent and legislative intent, there was no merit in the appeal before them. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the substantial question of law framed in the appeal was answered in favor of the assessee and against the revenue.