2022 (10) TMI 479 - AT - Income Tax

Deduction u/s. 10AA - Exclusion of insurance charges from export turnover - HELD THAT - The additional evidence submitted has to be factually verified to check whether the assessee is billing the customers towards insurance charges or not in order to determine whether the before insurance charges are to be excluded. Whether the insurance charges incurred are attributable to delivery of the articles or things outside India also needs to be verified based on facts and evidences. We therefore remit this issue back to the AO for verification of the facts afresh after giving opportunity of being heard to the assessee. AO is directed to consider the ratio laid down by the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Tata Elxsi Ltd. 2015 (3) TMI 1220 - ITAT BANGALORE in this regard. This ground is allowed for statistical purposes. Exclusion of 20% of traveling expenses from export turnover - The reason for adhoc disallowance made by the AO and CIT(A) is that the assessee has not submitted the required details to substantiate the claim that export turnover does not include the travel expenses as the assessee has not charged the customer and also that the travel expenses are largely incurred in INR. There is also a contention of the assessee that the travel expenses incurred in the course of business and not attributable to delivery of the articles or things outside India. These contentions need to be factually verified and the lower authorities have not carried out the verification based facts and evidences. We therefore remit this issue to the AO for fresh consideration, after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to submit the relevant details to substantiate its claim and cooperate with the proceedings. This ground is allowed for statistical purposes. Restricting benefit of 10AA deduction to the extent of export revenue brought into India in foreign currency - No reason to uphold the decision of the lower authorities in restricting the export turnover to the consideration received up to the date of filing of the return. In our considered view, the export turnover for the purpose of deduction u/s.10AA should not be restricted to the actual receipt since the legislature has not prescribed any time limit for the receipt in order to be eligible for deduction. We therefore remit the issue back to the AO to take into account the subsequent receipt and consider the entire export turnover to recompute the deduction u/s.10AA accordingly after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. This ground is allowed in favour of the assessee for statistical purposes. Expenses incurred towards brand launch - We notice that the assessee has submitted the details of entries pertaining to reversal of the provision made towards brand launch expenses in the subsequent financial year. We see merit in the submission of the AR that the disallowance of expenditure in the year under consideration would result in double disallowance since the entry is claimed to be reversed in the subsequent year and offered to tax. In this regard it is important to verify the entry pertaining to the reversal of brand expenses in the subsequent year and the additional evidence substantiating the same is not verified by the lower authorities. We therefore remit this issue to the AO with a direction to verify and allow the expenditure so that there is no double disallowance on this count. Needless to say that the assessee be given an opportunity of being heard. This ground of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Issues Involved:
1. Exclusion of insurance charge from export turnover while computing 10AA deduction.
2. Exclusion of 20% traveling expenses on an ad hoc basis as incurred in foreign currency.
3. Restricting benefit of 10AA deduction to the extent of export revenue brought into India in foreign currency.
4. Treating expenses incurred towards brand launching as capital in nature.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Exclusion of Insurance Charges from Export Turnover:
During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) excluded Rs.1,17,87,049 from export turnover as per Explanation to section 10AA. The assessee argued that insurance charges were related to property, business liability, and overseas travel, not attributable to the delivery of computer software outside India, and were not billed to customers, relying on the Tata Elxsi Ltd. case. The CIT(Appeals) rejected this claim, stating the assessee did not substantiate that the charges were not billed to customers. The Tribunal admitted additional evidence from the assessee and remitted the issue back to the AO for verification, directing the AO to consider the Tata Elxsi Ltd. case ratio.

2. Exclusion of 20% of Traveling Expenses from Export Turnover:
The AO excluded 20% of traveling expenses, assuming they were incurred in foreign currency. The assessee contended these expenses were routine business expenses not attributable to the delivery of articles outside India. The CIT(Appeals) upheld the AO's decision due to the lack of detailed evidence from the assessee. The Tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO for fresh consideration, directing the assessee to provide relevant details to substantiate its claim.

3. Restricting Benefit of 10AA Deduction to Export Revenue Brought into India in Foreign Currency:
The AO computed the 10AA deduction based on export revenue realized up to the date of filing the return. The assessee argued that section 10AA does not specify a time limit for bringing export proceeds into India, unlike section 10A(3). The CIT(Appeals) upheld the AO's decision. The Tribunal, referencing decisions from the Ahmedabad and Delhi Benches, held that the export turnover for 10AA deduction should not be restricted to the actual receipt within a specified time as section 10AA does not stipulate such a condition. The Tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO to consider subsequent receipts and recompute the deduction.

4. Treating Expenses Incurred Towards Brand Launch as Capital in Nature:
The AO treated Rs.3,37,87,510 incurred towards brand launch as capital expenditure, allowing depreciation and resulting in a disallowance of Rs.2,95,64,071. The assessee argued these were revenue expenses for business promotion, and the provision was reversed in the subsequent year. The CIT(Appeals) upheld the AO's decision. The Tribunal noted the reversal of the provision in the subsequent year and remitted the issue back to the AO to verify the reversal and ensure no double disallowance occurs.

Conclusion:
The appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, with the Tribunal remitting all issues back to the AO for fresh consideration and verification, ensuring the assessee is given an opportunity of being heard.

← Previous Next →