M/s Polaris Financial Technology Limited v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Company Circle-V(2), Chennai
[Citation -2016-LL-1004-73]

Citation 2016-LL-1004-73
Appellant Name M/s Polaris Financial Technology Limited
Respondent Name The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Company Circle-V(2), Chennai
Court ITAT-Chennai
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 04/10/2016
Assessment Year 2008-09
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags foreign currency • export turnover • total turnover
Bot Summary: In view of judgment of Madras High Court in Galaxy Granites Ltd. v. CIT 27 taxmann.com 31, according to the Ld. counsel, the unrealized export proceeds, if any, in foreign currency has to be included in the total turnover for computing deduction under Section 10A of the Act. Since the Assessing 3 I.T.A. No.13/Mds/13 Officer has excluded the sale proceeds, which was not realized from the total turnover, according to the Ld. counsel, the DRP is not justified in confirming the order of the Transfer Pricing Officer / Assessing Officer. On the contrary, Shri Anurag Sahay, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the TPO or the Assessing Officer or the DRP had no occasion to consider the judgment of Madras High Court in Galaxy Granites Ltd. the matter may be remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Madras High Court, while considering the claim under Section 80HHC of the Act, found that unrealized sale proceeds should be included in total turnover for the purpose of computing allowable deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act. As rightly submitted by the Ld. D.R., the Assessing Officer or the TPO had no occasion to consider this judgment of Madras High Court in Galaxy 4 I.T.A. No.13/Mds/13 Granites Ltd. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the Assessing Officer has to first consider this judgment of Madras High Court. Accordingly, the orders of the authorities below are set aside in respect of inclusion of unrealized sale proceeds in the export turnover and remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer shall reconsider the issue in the light of the judgment of Madras High Court in Galaxy Granites Ltd. and thereafter decide the issue, in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity to the assessee.


IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.13/Mds/2013 Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/s Polaris Financial Technology Limited Deputy Commissioner of (formerly known as Polaris v. Income Tax, Software Lab Limited), Company Circle V(2), 244, Carex Centre, Anna Salai, Chennai. Chennai - 600 006. PAN : AAACP 4341 E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Vijay Kumar Punna for Dr. Anita Sumanth, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Anurag Sahay, CIT Date of Hearing : 24.08.2016 /Date of Pronouncement : 04.10.2016 ORDER PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal of assessee is directed against order of Assessing Officer, consequent to directions of Dispute Resolution Panel dated 09.08.2012 and pertains to assessment year 2008-09. 2 I.T.A. No.13/Mds/13 2. first issue arises for consideration is deduction claimed by assessee under Section 10A of Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). 3. Shri Vijay Kumar Punna, Ld.counsel for assessee, submitted that appeal of assessee was earlier disposed of by this Tribunal. However, ground No.3 was not adjudicated by this Tribunal, therefore, assessee filed Miscellaneous Petition in M.P. No.184 & 185/Mds/2013 bringing to notice of this Tribunal that ground No.3 was not adjudicated. Accordingly, appeal was reopened only for purpose of adjudicating ground No.3. 4. Ground No.3, according to Ld. counsel, is with regard to deduction under Section 10A of Act. According to Ld. counsel, sale proceeds were subsequently brought to India within extended time granted by competent authority. Therefore, in view of judgment of Madras High Court in Galaxy Granites (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (2012) 27 taxmann.com 31, according to Ld. counsel, unrealized export proceeds, if any, in foreign currency has to be included in total turnover for computing deduction under Section 10A of Act. Since Assessing 3 I.T.A. No.13/Mds/13 Officer has excluded sale proceeds, which was not realized from total turnover, according to Ld. counsel, DRP is not justified in confirming order of Transfer Pricing Officer / Assessing Officer. 5. On contrary, Shri Anurag Sahay, Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that TPO or Assessing Officer or DRP had no occasion to consider judgment of Madras High Court in Galaxy Granites (P.) Ltd. (supra), therefore, matter may be remitted back to file of Assessing Officer. 6. We have considered rival submissions on either side and perused relevant material available on record. Madras High Court, while considering claim under Section 80HHC of Act, found that unrealized sale proceeds should be included in total turnover for purpose of computing allowable deduction under Section 80HHC of Act. assessee now claims before this Tribunal that on basis of very same analogy, for purpose of allowing deduction under Section 10A of Act, unrealized sale proceeds should be included in total turnover. As rightly submitted by Ld. D.R., Assessing Officer or TPO had no occasion to consider this judgment of Madras High Court in Galaxy 4 I.T.A. No.13/Mds/13 Granites (P.) Ltd. (supra). Therefore, this Tribunal is of considered opinion that Assessing Officer has to first consider this judgment of Madras High Court. Accordingly, orders of authorities below are set aside in respect of inclusion of unrealized sale proceeds in export turnover and remitted back to file of Assessing Officer. Assessing Officer shall reconsider issue in light of judgment of Madras High Court in Galaxy Granites (P.) Ltd. (supra) and thereafter decide issue, in accordance with law, after giving opportunity to assessee. 7. In result, ground No.3 is allowed for statistical purposes. It is made clear that other part of earlier order of Tribunal remains as such. Order pronounced on 4th October, 2016 at Chennai. sd/- sd/- (S. Jayaraman) (N.R.S. Ganesan) Accountant Member Judicial Member Chennai, th Dated, 4 October, 2016. Kri. 5 I.T.A. No.13/Mds/13 Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. Secretary, DRP, Chennai 4. TPO-II, Chennai. 5. DR 6. /GF. M/s Polaris Financial Technology Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Company Circle-V(2), Chennai
Report Error