Grant of additional foreign tax credit under the Income Tax Act

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
“A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE

BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND
SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

 ITA No.1688/Bang/2017
 Assessment Year : 2009-10

Robert Bosch Engineering and
Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
Hosur Road
Koramangala
Bangalore
PAN NO : AAACR7108R
APPELLANT 

Vs.

Deputy Commissioner of
Income-tax
Large Tax Payers Unit
Bangalore
RESPONDENT

 ITA No.1659/Bang/2017
 Assessment Year : 2009-10

ACIT LTU, Circle-1
Bangalore 
APPELLANT 

Vs.

Robert Bosch Engineering
and Business Solutions
Pvt. Ltd.
Hosur Road
Koramangala
Bangalore
RESPONDENT

Appellant by : Shri Percy Padiwala, Sr. Counsel
Respondent by : Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R.

Date of Hearing : 29.03.2021
Date of Pronouncement : 28.06.2021

O R D E R

PER B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

These cross appeals are directed against order dated 31.5.2017 passed by Ld. CIT(A)-14, Bengaluru and they relate to the assessment year 2009-10. At the time of hearing, both the parties ubmitted that the tax effect involved in the appeal filed by the revenue is less than Rs.50 lakhs and hence, the same is not maintainable in view of the Circular No.17/2019 dated 08-08-2019 issued by CBDT. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal of the revenue in limine.

2. We shall now take up the appeal filed by the assessee. The grounds of appeal and additional ground raised by the assessee read as under.

1. That the order of the Learned CIT(A) LTU is bad in law to the extent challenged herein.

2. Having regard to the facts, the Learned CIT(A) erred an holding that the Appellant's business is not exclusively in software development services.

3. Having regard to the facts, the Learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the Appellant is also involved in the business of rendering of technical services.

4. Without prejudice to the above, the Learned CIT(A) while coming to the conclusion that the Appellant is also involved in rendering technical services has not specifically mentioned which part of the services would constitute technical service under the Agreement.

5. Without prejudice the above, both the Learned CIT(A) as well as the Learned AO have erroneously stated that the Appellant has excluded foreign currency expenses from its export turnover while computing deduction under section 10A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ['the Act'].

6. That the Learned CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the Ground No.4 raised by the Appellant that expenditure in foreign currency and Telecommunication charges, when reduced from export turnover, ought to be reduced from Total Turnover as well. 

7. That the Learned CIT(A) erred in not direct5ing the AO to grant deduction u/s 10A in respect of export proceeds realized beyond 6 months from end of previous yer as contemplated in the provisions of sec 155 (11A) of the Act.

8. For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, the Appellant prays for appropriate relief.

To know more in details find the attachment file