9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (9) TMI 769 - HC - Income TaxDisallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D - disallowance for deduction u/s 10A - HELD THAT - No expenditure was incurred by them for earning the exempt income. The assessee were not able to substantiate that fact before the authorities or before the Tribunal. Both CIT(A) and the Tribunal re-appreciating the factual matrix and found that the investment during the year increased from Opening Balance of ₹ 3,21,68,40,000/- to Closing Balance of ₹ 5,17,93,70,000/-. Assessing Officer also found that the value of the assets also increased substantially to ₹ 1,84,18,32,000/- from ₹ 1,76,96,30,000/- and therefore applied Rule 8D and made additions under Section 14A of the Act and we find no error in the order of the Assessing Officer as confirmed by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal. Accordingly the Substantial Question of Law No.1 is answered against the assessee. Computing deduction under Section 10A - Exclusion of foreign currency from the 'Export Turnover' - HELD THAT - In the case of M/s.Renault Nissan Technology Business Centre India Private Limited 2020 (8) TMI 19 - MADRAS HIGH COURT this Court has considered the Substantial Question of Law as to whether the Tribunal erred in holding that the expenditure incurred in foreign exchange by the assessee therein was to be excluded from the 'Export Turnover' for the purpose of computing deduction under Section 10AA of the Act and the question was answered in favour of the assessee
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules. 2. Non-adjudication by the Tribunal on the eligibility for deduction under Section 10A due to disallowance under Section 14A. 3. Exclusion of expenditure incurred in foreign currency from the 'Export Turnover' for the purpose of computation of deduction under Section 10A. 4. Tribunal's failure to provide deduction under Section 10A with respect to exempt income under Section 14A. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D: The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed ?1,71,68,777/- under Section 14A read with Rule 8D, rejecting the assessee's claim of no expenditure incurred for earning exempt income. The CIT(A) and the Tribunal upheld this decision, noting a significant increase in investments and asset value during the year, justifying the application of Rule 8D. The Court found no error in these findings and answered the Substantial Question of Law No.1 against the assessee. 2. Non-adjudication on eligibility for deduction under Section 10A: The Tribunal did not adjudicate on the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 10A due to the disallowance under Section 14A. The Tribunal concluded that foreign currency expenditure should be excluded from 'Export Turnover' and 'Total Turnover'. The Court referenced its decision in the assessee's own case (T.C.A.No.961 & 962 of 2018), where it was held that such expenditures should not be excluded from 'Export Turnover' if they are integral to software development. The Court found that the Tribunal failed to consider the nature of the contract and the integral nature of the technical services provided. Therefore, the Substantial Questions of Law Nos. 2 and 3 were answered in favor of the assessee. 3. Exclusion of expenditure incurred in foreign currency: The Tribunal upheld the exclusion of foreign currency expenditure from 'Export Turnover'. The Court, referencing previous cases like M/s. Polaris Consulting and Services Ltd. and M/s. Renault Nissan Technology & Business Centre India Private Limited, emphasized that such expenditures should not be excluded if they are part of the software development process. The Court found that the Tribunal did not properly examine whether the expenses were for services rendered outside India. The decision in favor of the assessee was based on the factual matrix that no services were rendered outside India and the expenses were integral to software development. 4. Tribunal's failure to provide deduction under Section 10A: The assessee contended that the Tribunal failed to consider the ground that the AO erred in not providing deduction under Section 10A for exempt income under Section 14A. The Court noted that the Tribunal did not adjudicate this issue and confined its findings to the correctness of the disallowance under Section 14A. The Court remanded this issue to the Tribunal for fresh consideration, emphasizing the need to examine the assessee's entitlement to relief on this ground. Conclusion: The appeal was partly allowed. The Substantial Question of Law No.1 was answered against the assessee, while Substantial Questions of Law Nos. 2 and 3 were answered in favor of the assessee. The Substantial Question of Law No.4 was remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration.
|
