9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (7) TMI 725 - AT - Income TaxComputation of deduction u/s 10A - Held that - In the instant case the assessee has not generated any foreign exchange out of the suo-motu disallowance made by it. In fact, the assessee has actually spent money on reimbursements and hence there is no question of generating any income out of suo-motu disallowance of the expenditure incurred. Hence, in the absence of any income, it would not be possible to say that the suo-motu disallowance of any expenditure (which has already resulted in out go of money) would give rise to receipt of any money, which can be called as income generated out of software development activity. Thus, in our view, the ratio of the decision rendered in the case of Agilisys IT services India Pvt Ltd 2015 (7) TMI 110 - ITAT MUMBAI can be applied in the facts of the present case also. Even otherwise it is not a case of disallowance that is required to be made under the statutory provisions due to legal fiction. We notice that the Tribunal, while disposing of the identical issue in AY 2006-07, has taken into account the decision rendered by the Bangalore bench of Tribunal in the case of I Gate Global Solutions (2007 (11) TMI 444 - ITAT BANGALORE ). Hence, for the additional reasons discussed supra and also by following the decision rendered by the Tribunal in AY 2006-07 on identical issue, we are of the view that the Ld CIT(A) was justified in confirming the order of the AO in rejecting the claim for deduction u/s 10A of the Act in respect of suo-motu disallowance made by the assessee. - Decided against assessee. Disallowance u/s 14A of the Act - Held that - We notice that the ld CIT(A) had only set aside the issue to the file of the AO for fresh consideration in the light of decision rendered in the case of Godrej & Boyce mfg. Co. Ltd (2010 (8) TMI 77 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) by the Hon ble Bombay High Court. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the decision of Ld CIT(A) on this issue.- Decided against assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Computation of deduction under section 10A of the Income Tax Act. 2. Disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Computation of Deduction under Section 10A of the Act: The assessee, engaged in software development and IT services, claimed a deduction under section 10A on the profit generated from its business. The profit and loss account included expenses reimbursed to its Associate Enterprises (AE) for onsite managers' salaries and expenses amounting to Rs. 4.83 crores, which was an international transaction requiring a Transfer Pricing (TP) study. However, the assessee disallowed this amount while computing total income, contending that no TP adjustment/study was required as the amount was not claimed as a deduction. The Transfer Pricing Officer did not examine this claim since the assessee had already disallowed the payment. The Assessing Officer (AO) noticed that the assessee had similarly disallowed such claims in the preceding year, and the AO had held that the disallowed amount could not be considered as part of the income exempt under section 10A. Following the previous year's decision, the AO denied the deduction under section 10A for the disallowed reimbursement expenses. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's rejection of the claim under section 10A. The assessee contended that disallowed amounts should be eligible for deduction under section 10A as they form part of business income, relying on the decision of the Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd. However, the Tribunal had previously decided against the assessee on this issue for AY 2006-07, and the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee was also dismissed. The assessee argued that the suo-motu disallowance did not fall under the enhancement of income stated in the proviso to section 92C(4) since it was not an adjustment made by the AO. The Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in I Gate Global Solutions Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income held that disallowed amounts by the assessee after determining Arm's Length Price (ALP) are not considered income enhancement within the meaning of section 92C(4), thus eligible for exemption under section 10A. The assessee maintained that the TPO did not suggest any adjustment, so section 92C(4) did not apply. The DR countered, stating that the Tribunal had previously held that such disallowances were not eligible for deduction under section 10A. The DR further argued that the decision in Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd. was not applicable as the disallowance in that case was under section 36(1)(iv) due to statutory provisions, unlike the present case where the assessee disallowed the expenditure as per ALP. The Tribunal observed that the assessee had not generated foreign exchange from the suo-motu disallowance and had actually spent money on reimbursements, so no income was generated from the disallowance. Hence, the Tribunal upheld the AO's rejection of the deduction under section 10A for the suo-motu disallowed reimbursement expenses, following the decision in the case of M/s Agilisys IT Services India Pvt Ltd. 2. Disallowance under Section 14A of the Act: The AO noticed that the assessee received Rs. 1.65 crores in dividend income, claimed as exempt under section 10(34), but did not make any disallowance under section 14A, arguing no expenditure was incurred to earn the dividend. The AO disallowed 5% of the dividend income under section 14A. The CIT(A) set aside the matter regarding the disallowance under section 14A to the AO for reconsideration in light of the decision in Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd (328 ITR 81) by the Bombay High Court. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s decision to remand the issue for fresh consideration. Conclusion: The appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed, with the Tribunal upholding the AO's rejection of the deduction under section 10A for the suo-motu disallowed reimbursement expenses and finding no fault in the CIT(A)'s decision to remand the section 14A disallowance issue for fresh consideration. The judgment was pronounced on 15th July 2015.
|
