2019 (3) TMI 1153 - HC - Income Tax

Unabsorbed business losses to be first set off before computing deduction under Section 10A - HELD THAT - Mere perusal of sub-section of 10A(2)(i)(c) of the Act quoted would reveal that brought forward loss of any relevant Assessment Year before 1st April 2001 is not allowed to be carried forward and set off while computing the total income for determining the deduction under Section 10A of the Act. There was no brought forward loss from the previous years upto 1st day of April 2001 and it seems that the loss said to be carried forward by the assessee to the tune of ₹ 74,17,121 pertains only to the Assessment Year 2007-2008 and not the earlier years. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned Tribunal in allowing the said carry forward loss pertaining to the Assessment Year 2007-2008 while determining the deduction under Section 10A of the Act for the Assessment Year 2008-2009. No substantial question of law arising in this regard

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of the definition of Export Turnover under Section 10A for computing deduction.
2. Treatment of expenses incurred in foreign currency for deduction under Section 10A.
3. Set off of brought forward losses before computing deduction under Section 10A.

Analysis:
1. The first issue pertains to the interpretation of the definition of Export Turnover under Section 10A for computing deduction. The Revenue raised a question regarding the exclusion of freight and insurance expenses from Export Turnover and Total Turnover while computing deduction under Section 10A. The Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue acknowledged that the Apex Court's decision in a similar case necessitates the exclusion of these expenses. Thus, the questions related to these expenses were not pressed further.

2. The second issue involves the treatment of expenses incurred in foreign currency for deduction under Section 10A. The Revenue questioned the Tribunal's decision to exclude such expenses from both Export Turnover and Total Turnover. However, the counsel for the Appellant/Revenue relied on a Karnataka High Court decision, affirmed by the Supreme Court, related to Section 10B, not Section 10A. This distinction indicates a lack of alignment between the cases, suggesting a need for clarity in the interpretation of the law.

3. The third issue concerns the set off of brought forward losses before computing deduction under Section 10A. The judgment highlighted the provision under Section 10A(2)(i)(c) that disallows the carry forward and set off of losses from before April 1, 2001, for determining the deduction. The Assessing Authority's findings indicated that there were no brought forward losses from previous years up to the specified date. Consequently, the Tribunal's decision to allow the carry forward loss from a specific assessment year was upheld, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal due to lack of substantial legal questions.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues related to the interpretation of the law concerning deduction under Section 10A of the Income Tax Act, emphasizing the exclusion of specific expenses, treatment of foreign currency expenses, and the set off of brought forward losses. The decision provided clarity on certain aspects while highlighting the need for precision in applying legal provisions to ensure accurate computation of deductions under the Act.