9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (6) TMI 1648 - HC - Income TaxDeduction allowable u/s 10A - reducing the total turnover also by the same amount by which export turnover was reduced by the Assessing Officer in respect of foreign currency expenses incurred towards technical services rendered outside India - HELD THAT - First purported substantial question of law raised by the Revenue is concerned, the same is covered by the Division Bench decision of this court in the case of Tata Elxsi Ltd. v. Asst. CIT 2015 (10) TMI 634 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT which has been affirmed by the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. HCL Technologies Ltd. 2018 (5) TMI 357 - SUPREME COURT . Excluding the comparables , namely, M/s. Infosys Technologies Ltd., Kals Information Systems Ltd., Tata Elxsi Ltd., Persistent Systems Ltd. on the ground of functional dissimilarity - HELD THAT - Companies functionally dissimilar with that of assessee as provider of software services need to deselected from final list.
Issues Involved:
1. Recalculation of deduction under section 10A of the Income-tax Act. 2. Exclusion of certain comparables on grounds of functional dissimilarity. Detailed Analysis: 1. Recalculation of Deduction under Section 10A: The first issue pertains to whether the Tribunal was correct in directing the Assessing Officer to recalculate the deduction allowable to the assessee under section 10A by reducing the total turnover by the same amount by which export turnover was reduced due to foreign currency expenses incurred towards technical services rendered outside India. The Revenue argued that there is no provision in section 10A that mandates such expenses to be reduced from the total turnover, only from the export turnover. The court referenced the Division Bench decision in Tata Elxsi Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2015] and the Supreme Court's affirmation in CIT v. HCL Technologies Ltd. [2018], which clarified that if an assessee wants to claim the benefit of section 10A, the export should yield foreign exchange brought into the country. The court held that the substantial question of law is answered in favor of the assessee, allowing the deduction of profits and gains derived from the export of computer software. 2. Exclusion of Certain Comparables: The second issue concerns the Tribunal's exclusion of certain comparables, namely, Infosys Technologies Ltd., KALS Information Systems Ltd., Persistent Systems Ltd., and Tata Elxsi Ltd., on the grounds of functional dissimilarity. The Tribunal's findings were based on the functional differences between these companies and the assessee. For instance: - Infosys Technologies Ltd.: The Tribunal noted that Infosys has substantial brand value, owns intellectual property rights, and is a market leader in software development activities, unlike the assessee, which is merely a provider of software services to its associated enterprises. - KALS Information Systems Ltd.: The Tribunal observed that KALS is into software products, whereas the assessee provides software development services. This functional difference was upheld by a Co-ordinate Bench in the case of 3DPLM Software Solutions Pvt. Ltd. - Persistent Systems Ltd.: The Tribunal found that Persistent Systems is engaged in software designing and analytic services, making it functionally different from the assessee, which provides software development services. - Tata Elxsi Ltd.: The Tribunal noted that Tata Elxsi performs a variety of activities under the software development and services segment, including product design and innovation design engineering, which are not comparable to the assessee's software development services. The court referenced a recent judgment in Pr. CIT v. Softbrands India P. Ltd. [2018], which held that unless there is an ex facie perversity in the Tribunal's findings, appeals under section 260A of the Act are not maintainable. The court concluded that the present appeals do not give rise to any substantial question of law and are devoid of merit. Conclusion: The court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue, stating that no substantial question of law arises in the present case. The judgment emphasized that mere dissatisfaction with the Tribunal's findings is insufficient to invoke section 260A. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs, and a copy of the judgment was directed to be sent to the respondent-assessee forthwith.
|
