M/s. Oshung Electronics India Private Limited,, Pune v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle - 3,, Pune

CO 37/PUN/2019 | 2010-2011
Pronouncement Date: 21-11-2019 | Result: Dismissed

Our System has flagged this appeal as eligible for Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. If you are party to this appeal, get on a Free Consultation Call with our team of Legal Experts who shall guide you as to how you can save huge Interest and Penalty in VSV Scheme.


Apply Now
        
Try VSV Calculator

Appeal Details

RSA Number 3724523 RSA 2019
Assessee PAN AAACO7389R
Bench Pune
Appeal Number CO 37/PUN/2019
Duration Of Justice 3 month(s) 7 day(s)
Appellant M/s. Oshung Electronics India Private Limited,, Pune
Respondent Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle - 3,, Pune
Appeal Type Cross Objection
Pronouncement Date 21-11-2019
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted C
Tribunal Order Date 21-11-2019
Date Of Final Hearing 21-11-2019
Next Hearing Date 21-11-2019
Last Hearing Date 21-11-2019
First Hearing Date 04-09-2019
Assessment Year 2010-2011
Appeal Filed On 13-08-2019
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S.SYAL VP AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY JM . / I TA NO. 854 /PUN/20 18 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010 - 11 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 3 PUNE. ....... / APPELLANT / V/S. M/S. OSHUNG ELECTRONICS INDIA PVT. LTD. A 6/8 M.I.D.C. RANJANGAON TAL : SHIRUR PUNE - 412 220 PAN: AAACO7389R / RESPONDENT . /CO.NO.37/PUN/2019 /ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010 - 11 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.854/PUN/2018) M/S. OSHUNG ELECTRONICS INDIA PVT. LTD. A 6/8 M.I.D.C. RANJANGAON TAL : SHIRUR PUNE - 412 220 PAN: AAACO7389R .. / CROSS OBJECT OR / V/S. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 3 PUNE. / RESPONDENT 2 ITA NO. 854 /PUN/20 18 CO. NO.37/PUN/2019 A.Y. 2010 - 11 A SSESSEE BY : SHRI AJIT KUMAR JAIN REVENUE BY : MS. NEHA DESHPANDE / DATE OF HEARING : 21 .11 .2019 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21 .11 .2019 / ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHU RY JM : THIS APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTION (CO NO.37/PUN/2019) PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE EMANATES FROM THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(APPEAL) - 13 PUNE DATED 20.02.2018 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 201 0 - 1 1 AS PER THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON RECORD. 2. AT THE VERY OUTSET THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE APPRAISED THE BE NCH THAT SO FAR THE GROUND NOS. 3 AND 4 ARE CONCERNED IN THE REVENUES APPEAL THEY ARE CONCEDING THOSE GROUNDS. THAT WITH REGARD TO GROUND NOS. 1 AND 2 WHICH RELATES TO THE DETERMINATION OF ALP OF FOREIGN EXCHANGE INCOME THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT IF THESE GROUNDS ARE DISMISSED IN THAT SCENARIO CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WILL BECOME INFRUCTUOUS. 3. THE LD. DR CONCEDED TO THE ARGUMENTS PUT FORTH BY THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. HAVING HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES HEREIN SINCE GROUND NOS.3 AND 4 IN THE REVENUES APPEAL THE ASSESSEE CONCEDES THESE GROUNDS AND THERE FORE GROUND NOS. 3 AND 4 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL ARE ALLOWED. 3 ITA NO. 854 /PUN/20 18 CO. NO.37/PUN/2019 A.Y. 2010 - 11 5. NOW WE WOULD ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE IN GROUND NOS. 1 AND 2 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL WHICH PERTAINS TO T HE DETERMINATION OF ALP OF FOREX . 6. THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) ON THIS ISSUE HELD THAT THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER (TPO) CALCULATED THE PLI OF THE ASSESSEE AS NEGATIVE (3.26%) AS AGAINST THE PLI COMPUTED BY THE ASSESSEE AT 2.95%. THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION OF THE TPO AND THE ASSESSEE WITH RESPECT TO FOREIGN EXCHANGE GAIN ON OPERATING TRA NSACTIONS AS NON - OPERATING INCOME. THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) FURTHER OPINED THAT THE RESULT OF FOREIGN EXCHANGE FLUCTUATION ( GAIN/LOSS) ON OPERATING TRANSACTIONS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS OPERATING IN NATURE AND THEREFORE THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS R EGARD ARE ALLOWED. 7. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE DECISION OF THE PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF INA BEARINGS INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT CIRCLE 1(2) PUNE IN ITA NO.43/PUN/2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 AND ITA NO.100/PUN/2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 DECIDED ON 07.06.2019 WHEREIN THE QUESTION BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WAS AS FOLLOWS: 2. THE FIRST ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS APPEAL IS AGAINST THE COMPUTATION OF ARMS LENGTH PRICE (ALP) OF THE MANUFACT URING AS WELL AS TRADING SEGMENT BY EXCLUDING FOREIGN EXCHANGE GAIN/LOSS (FOREX). THE TRIBUNAL ON THIS ISSUE HAS HELD AS FOLLOWS: 6. WE FIND MERIT IN THE CONTENTION RAISED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ABOUT THE INCLUSION OF FOREIGN EXCHANGE GAIN/LOSS IN THE OPERATING REVENUE/COSTS OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THAT OF THE COMPARABLES. WHEN WE ADVERT TO THE NATURE OF SUCH FOREIGN EXCHANGE GAIN EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE IT HAS NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED BY THE LD. DR THAT THE SAME IS IN RELATION TO THE TRADING ITE MS EMANATING FROM THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS. IF THE FOREIGN EXCHANGE GAIN/LOSS DIRECTLY RESULTS FROM THE TRADING ITEMS WE FAIL TO APPRECIATE AS TO HOW SUCH FOREIGN EXCHANGE FLUCTUATION GAIN/LOSS CAN BE CONSIDERED AS NON - OPERATING. 4 ITA NO. 854 /PUN/20 18 CO. NO.37/PUN/2019 A.Y. 2010 - 11 7. THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ACIT VS PRAKASH I. SHAH (2008) 115 ITD 167 (MUM)(SB) HAS HELD THAT THE GAIN DUE TO FLUCTUATIONS IN THE FOREIGN EXCHANGE RATE EMANATING FROM EXPORT IS ITS INTEGRAL PART AND CANNOT BE DIFFERENTIATED FROM THE EXPORT PROCEEDS SIMPLY ON THE GROUND THAT THE FOREIGN CURRENCY RATE HAS INCREASED SUBSEQUENT TO SALE BUT PRIOR TO REALIZATION. IT WENT ON TO ADD THAT WHEN GOODS ARE EXPORTED AND INVOICE IS RAISED IN CURRENCY OF THE COUNTRY WHERE SUCH GOODS ARE SOLD AND SUBSEQUENTLY WHEN THE AMOUNT IS REALIZED IN THAT FOREIGN CURRENCY AND THEN CONVERTED INTO INDIAN RUPEES THE ENTIRE AMOUNT IS RELATABLE TO THE EXPORTS. IN FACT IT IS ONLY THE TRANSLATION OF INVOICE VALUE FROM THE FOREIGN CURRENCY TO THE INDIAN RUPEES. THE SPECIAL BENCH HELD THAT THE EXCHANGE RATE GAIN OR LOSS CANNOT HAVE A DIFFERENT CHARACTER FROM THE TRANSACTION TO WHICH IT PERTAINS. THE BENCH FOUND FALLACY IN THE SUBMISSION MADE ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE THAT THE EXCHANGE RATE DIFFERENCE SHOULD BE DETACHED FROM THE EXPORTS AND BE CO NSIDERED AS AN INDEPENDENT TRANSACTION. EVENTUALLY THE SPECIAL BENCH HELD THAT SUCH EXCHANGE RATE FLUCTUATION GAIN/LOSS ARISING FROM EXPORTS CANNOT BE VIEWED DIFFERENTLY FROM SALE PROCEEDS. 8. THE RELIANCE OF THE LD. DR ON SAFE HARBOUR RULES TO CONTEND T HAT FOREIGN EXCHANGE GAIN OR LOSS BE TAKEN AS NON - OPERATING IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT IN SUCH RULES FOREX GAIN/LOSS HAS BEEN TREATED AS NON - OPERATING. HOWEVER IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT SUCH RULES ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. EVEN THE RELIANCE OF THE LD. DR ON CERTAIN DECISIONS TAKING COGNIZANCE OF SAFE HARBOUR RULES FOR THE PERIOD ANTERIOR TO THEIR INSERTION IN OTHER CONTEXTS DOES NOT IMPROVE THE CASE OF THE DEPARTMENT. FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT IN PRINC IPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. AMERIPRISE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (ITA 206/2016) DECIDED ON 23.03.2016 HOLDING FOREIGN EXCHANGE GAINS EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS IN RELATION TO TRADING ITEMS AND EMANATING FROM INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS CANNOT BE TREATED AS NON - OPERATING LOSSES AND GAINS THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN PR. CIT VS. B.C. MANAGEMENT SERVICES PVT. LTD. (2018) 403 ITR 45 (DEL) REITERATED HELD THAT FOREIGN EXCHANGE FLUCTUATION IN RELATION TO TRADING TRANSACTIONS PRIOR TO SAFE HARBOR R ULES FROM 2013 IS OPERATING GAIN OR LOSS. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING DISCUSSION WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE AMOUNT OF FOREIGN EXCHANGE GAIN/LOSS ARISING OUT OF TRADING TRANSACTIONS IS REQUIRED TO BE CONSIDERED AS AN ITEM OF OPERATING REVENUE/ COST BOTH FOR THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE COMPARABLES. THE GROUND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS THEREFORE ALLOWED. 8. WE HAVE PERUSED THE CASE RECORDS AND CONSIDERED THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT PLACED BEFORE US. WE FIND THAT THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE LD. CIT( APPEAL) IS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF INA BEARINGS INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT CIRCLE 1(2) PUNE (SUPRA.) THAT THE FOREIGN EXCHANGE FLUCTUATION (GAIN/LOSS) ON OPERATING TRANSACTIONS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS OPERATING IN NATURE. THEREFORE IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL AS STATED HEREINABOVE ON THIS ISSUE WE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING OUR 5 ITA NO. 854 /PUN/20 18 CO. NO.37/PUN/2019 A.Y. 2010 - 11 DECISION SUSTAIN THE RELIEF PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. THUS GROUND NOS. 1 AND 2 O F THE REVENUES APPEAL ARE DISMISSED. 9. GROUND NO.5 IS GENERAL IN NATURE AND HENCE REQUIRES NO ADJUDICATION. 10. NOW COMING TO THE ARGUMENTS PUT FORTH BY THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IF GROUND NOS. 1 AND 2 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL ARE DISMISSED IN THAT SCENARIO CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BECOME INFRUCTUOUS AND LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. AFTER TAKING I NTO CONSIDERATION OF THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SINCE THE SAID GROUNDS ARE ANSWERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BECOMES INFRUCTUOUS AND HENCE DISMISS ED . 11. IN THE COMBINED RESULT APPEAL OF THE REVEN UE IN ITA NO.854/PUN/2018 IS PARTLY ALLOWED AND CROSS OBJECTION (CO NO.37/PUN/2019) FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRO NOUNCED ON 21 ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 201 9 . SD/ - SD/ - R.S.SYAL PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE; / DATED : 21 ST NOVEMBER 2019 . SB 6 ITA NO. 854 /PUN/20 18 CO. NO.37/PUN/2019 A.Y. 2010 - 11 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT. 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(APPEALS) - 13 PUNE. 4. THE PR. CIT - 5 PUNE. 5 . / DR ITAT C BENCH PUNE. 6. / GUARD FILE. // TRUE COPY // / BY ORDER / PRIVATE SECRETARY / ITAT PUNE . 7 ITA NO. 854 /PUN/20 18 CO. NO.37/PUN/2019 A.Y. 2010 - 11 DATE 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 21 . 11 .2019 SR.PS/PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 2 1 .11 .201 9 SR.PS/PS 3 DRAFT PROPOSED AND PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER AM/JM 5 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS SR.PS/PS 6 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR.PS/PS 7 DATE OF UPLOADING OF ORDER SR.PS/PS 8 FILE SENT TO BENCH CLERK SR.PS/PS 9 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 10 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE A.R 11 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER