Renew Your Membership by 31st October 2024! Renew Now!

June 2012

Export of computer software: Exemption/ deduction u/s.10A r.w.s 80-I: A.Ys. 1995-96 to 1998-99: No material to show that assessee indulged in arrangement with foreign buyer so as to produce higher profits to assessee: AO not entitled to presume such arrangement and determine reasonable profits.

By K. B. Bhujle, Advocate
Reading Time 2 mins
fiogf49gjkf0d
[CIT v. H. P. Global Soft Ltd., 342 ITR 263 (Karn.)]

The assessee company carried on the business of manufacture of hardware and software and exported its products. For the A.Ys. 1995-96 to 1998-99, the assessee claimed exemption u/s.10A in respect of two units. The Assessing Officer took the view that the exemption claimed in respect of the two units involved in creation of software was not merely unusually high in comparison to the assessee’s other business, but having regard to the close relationship between the assessee company and its foreign buyer the provisions of section 80-I(9) were to be applied in terms of 10A(6) of the Act. He, therefore, allowed exemption at the percentage of profit in respect of the entire turnover of the assessee inclusive of the export turnover. The Tribunal allowed the assessee’s claim.

On appeal by the Revenue, the Karnataka High Court upheld the decision of the Tribunal and held as under: “

(i) While there did exist a close connection between the assessee and the foreign buyer the other requirement as to the nature of the arrangement and the manner of rejection of the profits margin due to export sales as inflated profits attributable to export activities, had not been disclosed by the Assessing Officer.

(ii) The finding of the Appellate Authority was that the profit margin as revealed by the assessee was a reasonable profit margin in comparison to other similar units.

(iii) There being no material to indicate that the course of business had been so arranged as to inflate profits, i.e., to show a higher profit margin to the two export units of the assessee, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the Assessing Officer could not presume the existence of close connection or arrangement for the purpose of invoking section 80-I(9) of the Act.”

You May Also Like