High Court of Delhi
SANJIV KHANNA & V. KAMESWAR RAO, JJ.
Omniglobe Information Tech India Pvt. Ltd.
Versus
CIT
Income Tax Appeal. No. 257 of 2012
Decided on : 11-08-2014
Business Setup - Income Tax - Section 10B, Section 28 - The court discussed the distinction between 'setting up of business' and 'commencement of business' and analyzed various legal provisions and case laws to determine the setup of the business. The court held that the business was set up when the necessary infrastructure was in place and the training of employees was an integral part of the business activity.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant-assessee claimed deduction under section 10B of the Income Tax Act for the period from 1.4.2004 to 31.5.2004, contending that it had obtained approval as a 100% Export Oriented Unit under STPI scheme and had commenced operations from 1.4.2004. The Assessing Officer and the Tribunal held that the appellant assessee had commenced its operations only from 1.6.2004.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the business of the appellant-assessee had been set up as the necessary infrastructure was in place and the training of employees was an integral part of the business activity.
Issues: The main issue was whether the business had been set up on 1st April, 2004 or on 1st June, 2004.
Ratio Decidendi: The court analyzed the nature of the business activity, the distinction between 'setting up of business' and 'commencement of business', and the activities undertaken by the appellant-assessee to determine the setup of the business.
Final Decision: The court decided in favor of the appellant-assessee, holding that the business had been set up when the necessary infrastructure was in place and the training of employees was an integral part of the business activity.
Sanjiv Khanna, J. (Oral):
1. This appeal by the assessee pertains to assessment year 2005-06 and was admitted for hearing vide order dated 19th October, 2012, on the following substantial question of law:-
“Did the Tribunal fall into error in holding that the assessee had setup its business w.e.f. 1.6.2004 and not w.e.f. 1.4.2004, as held in the impugned order.”
2. The appellant-assessee was incorporated on 19th March, 2004, as a subsidiary of one M/s Omniglobe International, USA, as a business process service provider. The appellant-assessee had claimed deduction under section 10B, of the Income Tax Act (“Act”, for short), for a period commencing from 1.4.2004 to 31.5.2004, contending that it had obtained approval as a 100% Export Oriented Unit under STPI scheme and had commenced operations from 1.4.2004. The Assessing Officer as well as the Tribunal have held that the appellant assessee had commenced its operations only from 1.6.2004, i.e. the date on which the appellant assessee entered into “service agreement” with its parent company and, therefore, the expenditure incurred between 1.4.2004 to 31.5.2004 should be capitalised. Tribunal, in its impugned order had also observed that the appellant assessee had entered into a lease agreement and had hired premises as its office, only on 15.6.2005. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), however, had decided the issue/question in favour of the respondent assessee.
3. In order to determine and decide the controversy, we must examine the nature of the business activity undertaken by the appellant-assessee and the operation/activities between 1.4.2004 to 31.5.2004, when the expenditure of Rs 59,02,448/- was incurred.
4. The appellant-assessee, as recorded above, was in the business of voice activation and local number portability, i.e. Business Process Outsourcing (BPO) services, which were made available to M/s Omniglobe International, USA. The Activities fall in the category of ‘service industry’. The appellant-assessee had placed on record, before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), a copy of the agreement dated 30th March, 2004, between M/s Agilis Information Technologies International Pvt. Ltd (“M/s Agilis”, for short) and the appellant company. Under the said agreement, the appellant assessee was entitled to use to use the premises taken on lease by M/s Agilis, during 2000 hrs to 0800 hrs. It stipulated that the appellant assessee was entitled to use personal computers of M/s Agilis or install their new personal computers in the premises, but upon termination of the agreement, personal computers belonging to the assessee would be removed. The appellant-assessee could use furniture and fixtures of M/s Agilis. However, the appellant asseessee was to pay on pro rata basis, charges for water, electricity, energy, or power consumed. Lastly, it was agreed that the appellant-assessee would not use the internet facility of the provider, i.e. M/s Agilis, but would install a separate internet link from an internet service provider.
5. The break-up of the amount of Rs.59,02,448/-, which was disallowed as revenue expenditure but capitalised, is as under:-
“S.No. Expenses Head Amount
1 Salary & Wages 2283936
2 Employer Contribution to PF 46658
3 Employer Contribution to ESI 46919
4 Admin Charges PF/EDLI 4316
5 ESLI Charges 1943
6 Medical Expenses 151
7 Books & Periodicals 986
8 House Keeping Expenses 42493
9 Generator Running Maintt. 25121
10 Employee Activities 13200
11 Uniform expenses 324692
12 Profession Charges 935308
13 Projector Hire Charges 3000
14 Electricity Charges/water/Sewerage Charges 92070
15 Recruitment charges 447646
16 Computer hire charges 244355
17 Bank charges 50
18 Filing charges 100
19 Computer maintenance 2740
20 Pantry Charges 170485
21 Printer Cartridge 22800
22 Office Maintenance 23724
23 Transporation charges 628284
24 Stationery 18375
25 Lease Line Charges 274331
26 Telephone Expenses 68182
27 Printing Charges 7350
28 Travelling Expenses International 7732
Total expen Exp
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.