Barclays Shared Services Private Limited(Merged With Barclays Technology Centre India Pvt Ltd), Pune v. ACIT, Company Circle-1(2), Chennai

ITA 267/CHNY/2018 | 2010-2011
Pronouncement Date: 09-03-2021 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 26724514 RSA 2018
Assessee PAN AADCR6251L
Bench Pune
Appeal Number ITA 267/CHNY/2018
Duration Of Justice 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 16 day(s)
Appellant Barclays Shared Services Private Limited(Merged With Barclays Technology Centre India Pvt Ltd), Pune
Respondent ACIT, Company Circle-1(2), Chennai
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 09-03-2021
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 09-03-2021
Last Hearing Date 29-07-2019
First Hearing Date 08-03-2021
Assessment Year 2010-2011
Appeal Filed On 22-01-2018
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B PUNE VIRTUAL COURT BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.267/CHNY/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 BARCLAYS SHARED SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED (MERGED WITH BARCLAYS TECHNOLOGY CENTRE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED NOW KNOWN AS BARCLAYS GLOBAL SERVICE CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED GROUND FLOOR WING-3 CLUSTER A EON FREE ZONE MIDC KNOWLEDGE PARK KHARADI PUNE MAHARASHTRA 411014 PAN :AADCR6251L VS. ACIT COMPANY CIRCLE- 1(2) CHENNAI APPELLANT RESPONDENT / ORDER PER R.S.SYAL VP : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 17-11-2017 PASSED BY THE CIT(A)-5 CHENNAI IN RELA TION TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 2. THE FIRST MAJOR ISSUE RAISED IN THIS APPEAL IS AGAINST RESTRICTING DEDUCTIONS U/SS. 10A AND 10AA OF THE INCOME-TA X ACT 1961 (HEREINAFTER ALSO CALLED THE ACT) ON SEVERAL CO UNTS. ASSESSEE BY SHRI NIKHIL MUTHA REVENUE BY SHRI DEEPAK GARG DATE OF HEARING 08-03-2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 09-03-2021 ITA NO.267/CHNY/2018 BARCLAYS GLOBAL SERVICES CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED 2 3. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING INFORMATION TECHNOLOG Y ENABLED SERVICES. IT FILED ITS RETURN DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT NIL UNDER REGULAR PROVISIONS AND AT RS.45 85 14 327/- U/S.115JB OF THE ACT. IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME UNDER THE REGULAR PROVISIONS THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/SS. 10 A AND 10AA OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSE SSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION INTER ALIA ON FIVE ITEMS TOTALLING RS.1 20 86 914/- WHICH WERE CLUBBED UNDER THE MAIN HEAD OF OTHER INCOME VIZ. (1) INTEREST ON SHORT TERM FIXED DEPOSITS RS.99 02 569/-; (2) RECOVERY/REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES FROM GROUP COMPANIES RS.20 23 083-; (3) GA IN ON SALE OF FIXED ASSETS RS.1 000/-; (4) SALE OF SCRAP RS.1 31 005/-; AND (5) OTHER INCOME RS.29 257/-. ON BEING CALLED UPON TO EXPLAIN AS TO HOW THE ASSESSEE WAS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/SS.10A AND 10AA ON THE INTEREST INCOME THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IT PLACED ITS UNUTILIZED FUNDS IN SHORT TERM FIXED DEPOSITS WITH BANKS IN ORDER TO EFFECTIVELY MANAGE THE WORKING CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS OF ITS BUSINESS. RELYING ON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. ITA NO.267/CHNY/2018 BARCLAYS GLOBAL SERVICES CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED 3 MENON IMPEX (P) LTD. (2003) 259 ITR 403 (MAD) THE AO HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION ON INTEREST INCOME. SIMILAR VIEW WAS CANVASSED ON ALL THE REMAINING ITEMS. NO REPRIEVE WAS ALLOWED IN THE FIRST APPEAL. THAT IS HOW THE ASSESSEE IS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT AND GONE THROUGH THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS SEEN THAT THE AO DID NOT DISPUTE THE OTHERWISE ELIGIBILITY OF THE ASSESSEE TO DEDUCTIONS U/SS.10A AND 10AA OF THE ACT. THE LIMITED POINT UNDER CONSIDERATION INSTANTLY IS NON-GRANTING OF DEDUCTION ON THE ABOVE MENTIONED FIVE ITEMS OF INCOME. IN ORDER TO APPRECIATE AS TO WHETHER THESE INCOME ITEMS QUALIFY FOR SUCH DEDUCTIONS WE NEED TO LOOK INTO THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS. FIRSTLY WE TAKE UP SECTION 10A OF THE ACT WHICH IS A SPECIAL PROVISION IN RESPECT OF NEWLY ESTABLISHED UNDERTAKINGS IN FREE TRADE ZONE ETC. MATERIAL PART OF SU B- SECTION (1) OF SECTION 10A STATES THAT: `SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION A DEDUCTION OF SUCH PROFITS AND GAINS AS ARE DERIVED BY AN UNDERTAKING FROM THE EXPORT OF ARTICLES OR THINGS OR COMPUTER SOFTWARE . SHALL BE ALLOWED FROM THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THUS DEDUCTION H AS ITA NO.267/CHNY/2018 BARCLAYS GLOBAL SERVICES CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED 4 BEEN PROVIDED ON SUCH PROFITS AND GAINS AS ARE DERIVED BY AN UNDERTAKING FROM THE EXPORT OF ARTICLES OR THINGS OR COMPUTER SOFTWARE ETC. SUB-SECTION (4) OF SECTION 10A ELUCIDATES THE MEANING OF THE TERM PROFITS DERIVED FROM EXPORT OF ARTICLES OR THINGS OR COMPUTER SOFTWARE AS USED IN SUB-SECTION (1). THE LATER SUB-SECTION STATES THAT: `FOR THE PURPOSES OF SUB-SECTION S (1) AND (1A) THE PROFITS DERIVED FROM EXPORT OF ARTICLES O R THINGS OR COMPUTER SOFTWARE SHALL BE THE AMOUNT WHICH BEARS TO THE PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS OF THE UNDERTAKING THE SAME PROPORTION AS THE EXPORT TURNOVER IN RESPECT OF SUCH ARTICLE S OR THINGS OR COMPUTER SOFTWARE BEARS TO THE TOTAL TURNOVER OF TH E BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY THE UNDERTAKING. THE NARROWED EXPRESSION DERIVED FROM AS USED IN SUB-SECTION (1) NEE DS TO BE UNDERSTOOD IN THE HUE OF SUB-SECTION (4) WHICH TALKS O F PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS OF THE UNDERTAKING. ON A READIN G OF SUB-SECTION (4) IN JUXTAPOSITION TO SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 10A IT BECOMES PALPABLE THAT THE DEDUCTION HAS BEEN PROVIDED ON PROPORTIONATE BASIS ON THE PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS OF THE UNDERTAKING . IN ORDER TO BE COVERED WITHIN THE QUALIFYING AMOUNT IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT SUCH AMOUNT MUST ANSWER TO THE DESCRIPTION OF PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS OF THE UNDERTAKING . THE ITA NO.267/CHNY/2018 BARCLAYS GLOBAL SERVICES CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED 5 PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10AA INSOFAR AS THE PRESENT ISSUE IS CONCERNED ARE ALMOST SIMILAR INASMUCH AS THE EXPRESSION: PROFITS AND GAINS DERIVED FROM THE EXPORT OF SUCH ARTICLES OR THINGS.. AS USED IN SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 10AA HAS BEEN EXPLAINED UNDER SUB-SECTION (7) TO BE: `THE AMOUNT WHICH BE ARS TO THE PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS OF THE UNDERTAKING BEING THE UNIT THE SAME PROPORTION AS THE EXPORT TURNOVER IN RESPECT OF SUCH ARTICLES OR THINGS OR SERVICES BEARS TO THE TOTAL TURNOV ER OF THE BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY THE UNDERTAKING. THUS IT CAN BE SEEN THAT SECTION 10AA IS ALMOST SIMILAR TO SECTION 10A INSOFAR AS THIS ASPECT IS CONCERNED. 5. ON AN OVERVIEW OF THE ABOVE PROVISIONS IT BECOMES CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT AN ITEM OF INCOME IN ORDER TO BE COVERED UNDER THE QUALIFYING AMOUNT MUST HAVE SOME NEXUS WITH THE BUSINESS OF THE UNDERTAKING WHICH NEED NOT NECESSARILY BE DERIVED FROM IT. WHAT WE NEED TO APPRECIATE IS THAT THE AMOU NT OF INCOME WHICH QUALIFIES FOR DEDUCTION IS THE PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS OF THE UNDERTAKING AND NOT ANY INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE DE HORS THE BUSINESS OF THE UNDERTAKING. THE LD. AR FAIRLY ACCEPTED IF THE RELEVANT ITEMS OF INCOME ARE HELD TO B E FALLING UNDER THE HEAD `INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES THE SAME ITA NO.267/CHNY/2018 BARCLAYS GLOBAL SERVICES CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED 6 WILL NOT QUALIFY FOR DEDUCTION. WE ERGO PROCEED TO DETERM INE THE NATURE OF INCOME AD SERIATIM SO AS TO FIND OUT THE HEAD OF INCOME UNDER WHICH THEY FALL AND THEIR CONSEQUENTIAL TREATMENT AS QUALIFYING INCOME. 1. INTEREST ON SHORT TERM FIXED DEPOSITS : 6. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO THAT IT `PLACED ITS UNUTILIZED FUNDS IN SHORT TERM FIXED DEPOSITS WITH BANKS IN ORDER TO EFFECTIVELY MANAGE THE WORKING CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS OF ITS BUSINESS. ON A SPECIFIC QUERY THE LD. AR STATED A S IS ALSO BORNE OUT FROM THE REPLY SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW THAT THE FIXED DEPOSITS WERE NOT MEANT TO BE FURNISHED AS PRIMARY OR COLLATERAL SECURITIES FOR OBTAINING CREDIT FACILITIES FROM THE BANK. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE RAISED BE FORE THE AO THAT THE SURPLUS FUNDS WERE INVESTED IN FIXED DEPOSITS IN ORDER TO EFFECTIVELY MANAGE THE WORKING CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS OF ITS BUSINESS WOULD HAVE MERITED ACCEPTANC E IF SUCH FIXED DEPOSITS HAD BEEN UTILIZED IN ANY MANNER IN ASSISTING THE WORKING CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS. HOWEVER THE POSITION IS CLEARLY CONVERSE BEFORE US. IF THE ASSESSEE INSTEAD OF MAKING FIXED DEPOSITS WITH BANKS HAD DEPOSITED THE AMOUNT IN THE CASH CREDIT OR OVERDRAFT OR ANY OTHER SUCH ACCOU NT ITA NO.267/CHNY/2018 BARCLAYS GLOBAL SERVICES CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED 7 MAINTAINED WITH THE BANKS THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN A CASE OF EFFECTIVELY MANAGING WORKING CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUSINESS. HERE WE ARE CONFRONTED WITH A SITUATION IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS RATHER CHOSEN TO EARN INTEREST INCOME ON THE AMOUNT OF FIXED DEPOSITS EVEN FOR A SHORT DURATION DURIN G WHICH THE FUNDS WERE UNUTILIZED. UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES WE FAIL TO APPRECIATE AS TO HOW SUCH INTEREST INCOME CAN BE CLASSIFIED AS PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS OF THE UNDERTAKING . THE SAME BEING ALIEN TO THE BUSINESS OF THE UNDERTAKING DO NOT PARTAKE THE CHARACTER OF PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS OF THE UNDERTAKING . IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER SUCH INTEREST INCOME CANNOT BE INCLUDED IN THE QUALIFYING AMOUNT FOR THE PURPOSES OF DEDUCTION U/SS.10A/10AA OF THE ACT. 7. THE AO HAS RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT IN MENON IMPEX (P) LTD.(SUPRA) WHICH IS A JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT JUDGMENT OF THE ASSESSEE IN WHICH CLAIM U/S.10A HAS BEEN DENIED IN RESPECT OF THE INTEREST INCOME EARNED FROM BANKS. THE CO UNTER JUDGMENT RELIED ON BY THE LD. AR IS THAT OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. HEWLETT PACKARD GLOBAL SOFT LTD. (2017) 87 TAXMANN.COM 182 (KAR) (FB) IN WHICH INTEREST FROM BANK DEPOSITS HAS BEEN MADE ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION ITA NO.267/CHNY/2018 BARCLAYS GLOBAL SERVICES CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED 8 U/S.10A OR 10B. WE NEED TO GO WITH AND FOLLOW THE MENON JUDGMENT FOR TWO REASONS. FIRST IS THAT THE SAME IS OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT WHICH IS BINDING ON THE ASSESSEE AND SECONDLY WE ARE CONCERNED WITH SECTION 10A/10AA WHICH ARE IN THE NATURE OF DEDUCTION PROVISIONS WHEREAS THE HEWLETT PACKARD DEALT WITH SECTIONS 10A/10B THE THEN EXEMPTION PROVISIONS. THE LD. DR HAS ALSO RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT IN CONVENTIONAL FASTENER & ORS. VS. CIT (2018) 301 CTR 625 (UTTARAKHAND) IN WHICH IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT NO DEDUCTION U/S.80IC CAN BE ALLOWED IN RESPECT OF INTEREST INCOME EARNE D FROM FIXED DEPOSITS. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING DISCUSSIO N WE ARE FULLY SATISFIED THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WERE JUSTIFIED IN NOT INCLUDING THE INTEREST ON FIXED DEPOSITS AMOUNTING TO RS.99.02 LAKH IN THE QUALIFYING AMOUNT FOR THE PURPOSES O F GRANTING DEDUCTION U/SS.10A/10A OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE FAILS ON THIS SCORE. 2. RECOVERY/REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES FROM GROUP COMPANIES. 8. THE NEXT ITEM IN DISPUTE IS RECOVERY/REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES FROM GROUP COMPANIES. THE AO HAS NOT SEPARATE LY ITA NO.267/CHNY/2018 BARCLAYS GLOBAL SERVICES CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED 9 DISCUSSED THIS ITEM IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IN THE STATEME NT OF FACTS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE NATURE OF SUCH AMOUNT BY EXPLAINING THAT IT WAS INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE ON BEHALF OF ITS GROUP COMPANIES AND SUBSEQUENTLY RECOVERED AND SHOWN AS CREDIT IN THE PROFIT AN D LOSS ACCOUNT. THAT IS HOW THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED SUCH A N AMOUNT TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTIONS. THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT CONCUR WITH THE ASSESSEE. 9. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND GONE THROUGH THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE INCURR ED CERTAIN EXPENSES ON BEHALF OF ITS GROUP COMPANIES WHICH W ERE INCLUDED IN ITS TOTAL EXPENSES. THEREAFTER A SUM OF RS.20 .23 LAKH WAS RECOVERED FROM GROUP COMPANIES AS REIMBURSEM ENT WHICH WAS SHOWN TO THE CREDIT OF THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. ONCE THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN INCLUDED IN THE EXPENSES WHICH HA S GONE TO REDUCE THE PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS OF THE UNDERTAKING ITS RE-IMBURSEMENT AS A SEQUITUR WOULD OBVIOUSLY BE A PAR T OF THE QUALIFYING AMOUNT FOR THE PURPOSES OF DEDUCTION UNDER TH E SECTIONS. WE THEREFORE OVERTURN THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THIS SCORE AND ORDER TO GRANT DEDUCTION ON SUCH ITA NO.267/CHNY/2018 BARCLAYS GLOBAL SERVICES CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED 10 RECOVERY/REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES FROM GROUP COMPAN IES. THE ASSESSEE SUCCEEDS HERE. 3. GAIN ON SALE OF FIXED ASSETS 10. THE NEXT ITEM IN DISPUTE IS GAIN ON SALE OF FIXED AS SETS. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE NEVER CLAIMED ANY DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF THIS ITEM AND THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN EXCLUDING IT. THE LD. DR COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE POSITION STATED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AS WAS ALSO STATED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE STATEMENT OF FACTS. IN VIEW OF THIS FACTUAL SCENARIO WHERE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT INCLUDE THE AMOUNT IN TH E QUALIFYING AMOUNT THERE CAN BE NO QUESTION OF REDUCING IT. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. THE ASSESSEE SUCCEEDS ON THIS C OUNT. 4. SALE OF SCRAP . 11. THE NEXT ITEM IS SALE OF SCRAP AMOUNTING TO RS.1 31 005/-. AGAIN THE AO DID NOT DISCUSS THIS ITEM IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSEE IN THE STATEMENT OF FAC TS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) REITERATED ITS POSITION. 12. HAVING GONE THROUGH THE RELEVANT FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT THE SCRAP EMANATED FR OM THE NORMAL WORKING ITEMS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WHOSE COSTS WERE DEBITED TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. ON SALE O F ITA NO.267/CHNY/2018 BARCLAYS GLOBAL SERVICES CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED 11 SUCH SCRAP AGAINST WHICH THE EXPENSES WERE BOOKED IN THE COMPUTATION OF THE QUALIFYING AMOUNT THE RECEIPT WOULD FORM PART OF THE QUALIFYING AMOUNT. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. THE ASSESSEE SUCCEEDS. 5. OTHER INCOME 13. THE LAST ITEM IS A QUESTION IS `OTHER INCOME OF RS.29 257/-. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT EXPLAIN THE NATURE OF THIS INCOME BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS TO HOW IT WAS IN RELATION TO THE PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS OF UNDERTAKING . SAME POSITION CONTINUES BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AS WELL. IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT EVEN THE NATURE OF INCOME IS NOT KNOWN TO THE ASSESSEE WE FAIL TO COMPREHEND AS TO HOW IT CAN FORM PA RT OF THE PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS OF UNDERTAKING . THE ASSESSEE FAILS ON THIS SCORE. 14. THE NEXT GROUND ON THE COMPUTATION OF THE QUALIFYING AMOUNT FOR THE GRANT OF DEDUCTIONS U/S 10A/10AA IS DISALLOWANCE OF PROVISION FOR LEAVE ENCASHMENT. THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE PROVISION FOR LEAVE ENCASHMENT IN SECTION 10A UNIT AT RS.63.81 LAKH AND 10AA UNIT AT RS.7.43 LAKH. THE SAME WAS ADDED BACK WHILE COMPUTING ELIGIBLE AMOUNT. HOWEVER WHILE CONSOLIDATING THE ITA NO.267/CHNY/2018 BARCLAYS GLOBAL SERVICES CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED 12 ACCOUNTS THE ASSESSEE ADDED RS.88.40 LAKH TOWARDS PROV ISION FOR LEAVE ENCASHMENT AS AGAINST RS.71.24 LAKH. HENCE PROVISION WAS FOUND BY THE AO TO BE MORE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.17.15 LAKH. THE AO REDUCED SUCH AMOUNT OF RS.17 15 686/- FROM THE QUALIFYING AMOUNT TOWARDS DEDUCTION S U/SS.10A/10AA OF THE ACT. THE LD. CIT(A) ECHOED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON THIS ISSUE. 15. THE CASE OF THE AO IS THAT THE ASSESSEE ADDED BA CK PROVISION FOR LEAVE ENCASHMENT AMOUNTING TO RS.88.40 LAKH BUT DID NOT REDUCE RS.17.15 LAKH. WE HAVE EXAMINED THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME WHOSE COPY HAS BEEN PLACED AT PAGE S 19 AND 20 OF THE PAPER BOOK. IT CAN BE SEEN FROM S UCH COMPUTATION THAT THE ASSESSEE IN FACT ADDED BACK RS.88 40 364/- WITH THE NARRATION PROVISION FOR LEAVE ENCASHMENT OUTSTANDING AS ON MARCH 31 2010 AND THEREAFTER REDUCED THE AMOUNT OF RS.17 15 686/- WITH THE NARRATION PAYMENT OF LEAVE ENCASHMENT AGAINST THE PENDING PROVISION AS ON APRIL 1 2010 . IT APPEARS THAT THE AO DID NOT EXAMINE THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME IN TOTALITY AND REDUCED THE CLAIM BY RS.17.15 LAKH WHICH HAD ALREADY BEEN REDUCED SUO MOTU BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME. IT IS WITH SUC H ITA NO.267/CHNY/2018 BARCLAYS GLOBAL SERVICES CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED 13 ADJUSTED PROFIT THAT THE ASSESSEE WENT ON TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U/SS.10A/10AA. THIS GROUND IS THEREFORE ALLOWED. 16. THE NEXT ISSUE CONCERNING WITH THE DEDUCTIONS U/SS.10A/10AA IS THAT THE AO ERRED IN MAKING ADJUSTMENT BY EXCLUDING RS.17 86 89 000/- INCURRED TOWARDS FOREIGN TRAV EL EXPENSES AND RS.6 35 17 000/- INCURRED TOWARDS COMMUNICATION/CONNECTIVITY CHARGES FROM EXPORT TURNOVER. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSE E WAS ASKED TO SUBMIT DETAILS OF AMOUNT INCURRED TOWARDS TELECOMMUNICATION CHARGES AND EXPENSES INCURRED IN FOREIGN EXCHANGE IN PROVIDING SERVICES OUTSIDE INDIA. ON PERUSAL O F SUCH DETAILS THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT REDUCED THESE AMOUNTS FROM THE EXPORT TURNOVER. HE ER GO REDUCED THESE TWO ITEMS FROM THE `EXPORT TURNOVER WITHOUT GIVING CONSEQUENTIAL EFFECT TO THE `TOTAL TURNOVER WHILE WORKING OUT THE AMOUNT OF DEDUCTION U/SS.10A/10AA. NO SUCCOUR WAS PROVIDED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 17. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUS ING THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSE E INITIALLY DID NOT REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF THE ABOVE REFERRED TWO EXPENSES FROM TOTAL TURNOVER AND ALSO EXPORT TURNOVER. T HE ITA NO.267/CHNY/2018 BARCLAYS GLOBAL SERVICES CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED 14 AO HOWEVER COMPUTED THE AMOUNT OF DEDUCTION U/SS.10A/10AA BY REDUCING THESE TWO AMOUNTS FROM THE AMOUNT OF `EXPORT TURNOVER ONLY. THE CBDT IN ITS CIRCULAR NO.04/2018 COPY PLACED AT PAGE 240 OF THE PAPER BOOK HAS PROVIDED THAT WHILE COMPUTING DEDUCTION U/S.10A THE AMOUNT OF FREIGHT TELECOMMUNICATION CHARGES AND INSURANCE EXPENSE S SHOULD BE EXCLUDED FROM BOTH THE `EXPORT TURNOVER AND `T OTAL TURNOVER. THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. MERCER CONSULTING (INDIA) PVT. LTD. (2017) 390 ITR 615 (P&H) HAS ALSO HELD THAT TELECOMMUNICATION CHARGES SHOULD BE EXCLUDED FROM BOTH THE `EXPORT TURNOVER AND ALSO THE `TOTAL TURNOVER IN THE FORMULA WHILE COMPUTING DEDUCTION U/SS.10A/10AA. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING IT IS EVIDENT THAT TH E AMOUNT OF EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN FOREIGN EXCHANGE SHOULD BE REDUCED FROM BOTH THE `EXPORT TURNOV ER AS WELL AS `TOTAL TURNOVER WHILE COMPUTING DEDUCTION U/SS.10A/10AA. AS THE AO REDUCED SUCH AMOUNTS ONLY FRO M THE `EXPORT TURNOVER AND NOT THE `TOTAL TURNOVER WE DIREC T TO EXCLUDE THESE AMOUNTS FROM `TOTAL TURNOVER AS WELL WHILE COMPUTING THE DEDUCTIONS. ITA NO.267/CHNY/2018 BARCLAYS GLOBAL SERVICES CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED 15 18. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING DISCUSSION WE SET-ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THE QUESTION OF DEDUCTIONS U/S 10A/10AA OF THE ACT AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF AO WITH A DIRECTION TO COMPUTE THE SAME IN ACCORDANCE WITH OUR ABOVE OBSERVATIONS. 19. THE NEXT INDEPENDENT GROUND NO.2 IS AGAINST THE DISALLOWANCE OF `PROVISION FOR PERFORMANCE BONUS AMOUN TING TO RS.5 60 27 567/- AND `PROVISION FOR EXPENSES AMOUN TING TO RS.21 36 44 810/- WHILE COMPUTING BOOK PROFITS U/S.115JB O F THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT SUCH EXPENSES ARE UNASCERTAINED LIABILITIES . 20. THE FACTUAL SCENARIO OF THESE TWO AMOUNTS IS THAT TH E ASSESSEE DID NOT ADD BACK `PROVISION FOR EXPENSES AT RS.23.77 CRORE AND `PROVISION FOR PERFORMANCE BONUS AT RS.5.60 CRORE WHILE COMPUTING BOOK PROFIT U/S.115JB. ON BEING CALLED UPON TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY SUCH AMOUNTS WERE NOT ADDED BACK THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THESE PROVISIONS W ERE IN RESPECT OF CRYSTALLIZED LIABILITY OF BONUS AND THE EXPENSES INCURRED FOR WHICH BILLS ETC. WERE TO BE RECEIVED AND HENCE WERE ASCERTAINED LIABILITY . THE AO ADDED BACK THESE TWO AMOUNTS BY HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH AS TO HOW ITA NO.267/CHNY/2018 BARCLAYS GLOBAL SERVICES CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED 16 THESE PROVISIONS WERE COMPUTED WITH REASONABLY CERTAINTY. THE LD. CIT(A) ACCORDED HIS IMPRIMATUR TO THE VIEW POINT OF THE AO. 21. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THRO UGH THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. SECTION 115JB IS A SPECIAL PROVISION FOR PAYMENT OF TAX BY CERTAIN COMPANIES. UNDER THIS SECTION `BOOK PROFIT IS COMPUTED WHICH IS THEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION FOR WORKING OUT THE AMOUNT OF TAX TO BE PAID. EXPLANATION TO SECTION 115JB DEFINES THE EXPRESSION BOOK PROFIT TO MEAN THE PROFITS AS SHOWN IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AS INCREASED BY CERTAIN ITEMS AND THEREAFTER AS RE DUCED BY CERTAIN ITEMS. ONE OF THE ITEMS WHICH HAVE BEEN MENTIONE D FOR INCREASE IS CLAUSE (C) NAMELY `THE AMOUNT OR AMOU NTS SET ASIDE TO PROVISIONS MADE FOR MEETING LIABILITIES OTHER THAN ASCERTAINED LIABILITIES . THUS IT IS EVIDENT THAT WHILE COMPUTING AMOUNT OF `BOOK PROFIT ANY AMOUNT TRANSFERRED TO PROVISION ACCOUNT WHICH IS NOT AN ASCERTAINED LIABILITY IS LIABLE TO BE ADDED BACK TO THE AMOUNT OF PROFIT AS SHOWN IN TH E PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. IF ON THE OTHER HAND THE PROVISIO N HAS BEEN MADE IN RESPECT OF ASCERTAINED LIABILITY THE SAME WOULD NOT BE ADDED BACK. ITA NO.267/CHNY/2018 BARCLAYS GLOBAL SERVICES CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED 17 22. ADVERTING TO THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE IT IS SE EN THAT THE FIRST ITEM IS `PROVISION FOR EXPENSES MADE BY THE ASSE SSEE DURING THE YEAR AT RS.21 36 44 810/-. THOUGH THE AO MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH AS TO HOW THESE PROVISIONS WERE COMPUTED WHILE MAKING DISALLOWANCE IN PARA 4 OF HIS ORDER HOWEVER WHILE CONSIDERING INCORRECT CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION IN PARA 6 OF HIS ORDER OBSERVED THAT THE AS SESSEE COMPANY ALSO QUOTED THE FOLLOWING JUDICIAL DECISIONS WITH SUPPORTING EVIDENCES LIKE LIST OF PERSONS TO WHOM THE PERFORMANCE BONUS WAS PROVIDED LEDGER COPIES OF PROVIS ION FOR EXPENSES SHOWING VARIOUS HEADS OF EXPENDITURE AND THE CORRESPONDING PROVISIONS MADE. THERE IS AN APPARENT CONTRADICTION IN THE RECORDING MADE BY THE AO. WE HAVE GON E THROUGH THE RELEVANT PARTS OF THE ASSESSEES TAX AUDIT REPOR T FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AS PER WHICH THE ASSESSEE MADE PROVISION FOR BONUS. EXCEPT FOR A SUM OF RS.6.36 LAKH THE ASSESSEE PAID THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF BONUS IN THE SUCCEEDING YEAR. THUS IT IS OVERT THAT THE PROVISION FOR BONUS IS AN ASCERTAINED LIABILITY WHICH WAS LARGELY DISCHARGED IN THE IMMEDIATELY SUCCEEDING YEAR. ITA NO.267/CHNY/2018 BARCLAYS GLOBAL SERVICES CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED 18 23. THE NEXT IS THE ITEM OF `PROVISION FOR EXPENSES. DETAILS OF SUCH PROVISION HAVE BEEN PLACED AT PAGE 64 OF THE PAP ER BOOK. SUCH PROVISION INCLUDES SALARY EMPLOYEE INCENTIVE STAFF COST CAR HIRE CHARGES STAFF TRAINING EXPENSES STA FF WELFARE EXPENSES REPAIRS MAINTENANCE ELECTRICITY TRAVELLING BANK CHARGES AND INSURANCE ETC. ON THE LATER PAGES THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED COPIOUS DETAILS OF SUCH EXPENSES. A LL THESE EXPENSES ARE IN THE NATURE OF REGULAR BUSINESS EXPE NSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR FOR WHICH BILLS WE RE NOT RECEIVED BY THE YEAR END LEADING TO CREATION OF A PROVISION. SINCE SUCH PROVISION IS IN RESPECT OF ASCERTAINED LIABILITY THE SAME CANNOT BE ADDED BACK WHILE COMPUTING BOOK PROFIT U/S.115JB OF THE ACT. WE THEREFORE ORDER TO TREAT BOTH THE AMOUNTS IN QUESTION AS PROVISIONS FOR ASCERTAINED LIABILITY AND NOT TO MAKE ANY ADDITION TO THE BOOK PROFIT IN THIS REGARD. THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED. 24. GROUND NO.4 IS AGAINST ALLOWING OF DEPRECIATION ON COMPUTERS/COMPUTER PERIPHERALS AT 15% INSTEAD OF 60% CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE AO ALLOWED DEPRECIATION ON COMPUTERS/COMPUTER PERIPHERALS @15% AS AGAINST THE ITA NO.267/CHNY/2018 BARCLAYS GLOBAL SERVICES CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED 19 ASSESSEES CLAIM OF 60%. THE LD. CIT(A) ECHOED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 25. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND GONE THROUGH THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD WE FIND FROM THE GROUND OF APPEAL THAT THIS GRIEVANCE IS ONLY ABOUT THE RATE AT WHICH DEPRECIATION SHOULD BE ALLOWED ON COMPUTERS/COMPUTER PERIPHERALS. WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEPRECIATION @60% THE AO RESTRICTED IT TO 15%. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE DETAILS OF SUCH AMOUNTS ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEPRECIATION AT THE INCREASED RATE. SUCH DETAILS HAVE BEEN PLACED AT PAGE 138 ONWARDS OF THE PAPER BOOK. ON GOIN G THROUGH SUCH DETAILS IT IS MANIFESTED THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEPRECIATION AT HIGHER RATE ONLY IN RESPECT OF COMPUTERS PURCHASED BY IT FOR RENDERING IT ENABLED SERVICES. THERE IS NO DISPUTE ABOUT THE ELIGIBILITY OF DEPRECIATION ON COMPUTERS AT 60%. 26. HOWEVER IN RESPECT OF COMPUTER PERIPHERALS THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN DCIT VS. DATA CRAFT INDIA LTD. (2010) 133 TTJ (SB) 377 HAS HELD THAT ROUTERS AND SWITCHES SHOULD ALSO BE CLASSIFIED UNDER THE TERM COMPUTERS SUBJECT TO HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION. THE HONBLE DELHI HIG H ITA NO.267/CHNY/2018 BARCLAYS GLOBAL SERVICES CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED 20 COURT IN CIT VS. BSES YAMUNA TOWERS LTD. 2010-TIOL-636- HC-DEL-IT HAS ALSO MADE THE ASSESSEE ENTITLED TO HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION IN RESPECT OF ROUTERS AND SWITCHES. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING DISCUSSION IT IS GRAPHICALLY CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE IS RIGHTLY ENTITLED TO THE HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION O F 60% ON COMPUTERS/COMPUTER PERIPHERALS ETC. THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS OVERTURNED ON THIS ISSUE AND THE NECESSARY RELIEF IS ALLOWED. 27. THE ADDITIONAL GROUND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN RES PECT OF DEPRECIATION DISALLOWED WHICH IS SUBJECT MATTER OF GROUND NO.4 VIS-A-VIS CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/SS.10A/10AA HAS BECOME INFRUCTUOUS IN VIEW OF OUR DECISION IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESS EE ON GROUND NO.4. THIS GROUND IS THUS DISMISSED AS HAVING BECOME ACADEMIC. 28. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 09 TH MARCH 2021. SD/- SD/- (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) (R.S.SYAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDE NT PUNE; DATED : 09 TH MARCH 2021 ITA NO.267/CHNY/2018 BARCLAYS GLOBAL SERVICES CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED 21 / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT; 2. / THE RESPONDENT; 3. THE CIT(A)-5 CHENNAI 4. THE PR.CIT-5 CHENNAI 5. B / DR B ITAT PUNE 6. / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY / ITAT PUNE DATE 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 08-03-2021 SR.PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 09-03-2021 SR.PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. JM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS SR.PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR.PS 7. DATE OF UPLOADING ORDER SR.PS 8. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.PS 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 10. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE A.R. 11. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER. *