REPORTABLE  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8489-8490 OF 2013  

Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-III …..Appellant(s)  

    Versus

HCL Technologies Ltd.                              …. Respondent(s)

WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8535 of 2013  

                 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8555-8556 of 2013  CIVIL APPEAL NO.7853 of 2012  CIVIL APPEAL NO.8789 of 2012 CIVIL APPEAL NO.8559 of 2013  CIVIL APPEAL NO.8558 of 2013  

                 CIVIL APPEAL NOs.8529-8530 of 2013  CIVIL APPEAL NO.8515 of 2013  CIVIL APPEAL NO.8557 of 2013  CIVIL APPEAL NO.8524 of 2013  CIVIL APPEAL NO.8518 of 2013  CIVIL APPEAL NO.8525 of 2013  CIVIL APPEAL NO.8539 of 2013  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4392 OF 2018  (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) NO. 5345 OF 2014)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.8562 of 2013  CIVIL APPEAL NO.8533 of 2013  CIVIL APPEAL NO.7854 of 2012 CIVIL APPEAL NO.8560 of 2013  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4393 OF 2018  (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) NO. 31028 OF  2012)  

1

CIVIL APPEAL NO.8537 of 2013  CIVIL APPEAL NO.8543 of 2013  CIVIL APPEAL NO.8492 of 2013  

               CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8540-8541 of 2013  CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8542 of 2013  CIVIL APPEAL NO.8551 of 2013  CIVIL APPEAL NO.8494 of 2013  CIVIL APPEAL NO.8527 of 2013  CIVIL APPEAL NO.4543 of 2014  CIVIL APPEAL NO.8536 of 2013  CIVIL APPEAL NO.8500 of 2013  CIVIL APPEAL NO.8506 of 2013  CIVIL APPEAL NO.8553 of 2013  CIVIL APPEAL NO.8499 of 2013  CIVIL APPEAL NO.8526 of 2013  CIVIL APPEAL NO.8501 of 2013  CIVIL APPEAL NO.8538 of 2013  CIVIL APPEAL NO.8491 of 2013  CIVIL APPEAL NO.1098 of 2016 CIVIL APPEAL NO.8505 of 2013  CIVIL APPEAL NO.8510 of 2013  CIVIL APPEAL NO.8513 of 2013  CIVIL APPEAL NO.8507 of 2013  CIVIL APPEAL NO.8504 of 2013  CIVIL APPEAL NO.8503 of 2013  CIVIL APPEAL NO.8519 of 2013  CIVIL APPEAL NO.8927 of 2013  CIVIL APPEAL NO.8791 of 2012  CIVIL APPEAL NO.8528 of 2013  CIVIL APPEAL NO.8523 of 2013  CIVIL APPEAL NO.8554 of 2013  CIVIL APPEAL NO.8509 of 2013  

                CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 8521-8522 of 2013  CIVIL APPEAL NO.147 of 2013  CIVIL APPEAL NO.8912 of 2012  CIVIL APPEAL NO.6594 of 2015  CIVIL APPEAL NO.8561 of 2013 CIVIL APPEAL NO.8531 of 2013  CIVIL APPEAL NO.8544 of 2013  

2

CIVIL APPEAL NO.8550 of 2013  CIVIL APPEAL NO.8545 of 2013  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4394 OF 2018  (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) NO. 35917 OF  2012)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8929 of 2013  CIVIL APPEAL NO.1099 of 2016 CIVIL APPEAL NO.10830 of 2014

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4395 OF 2018  (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) NO. 3617 OF 2013)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8552 of 2013 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8495 of 2013  CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8493 of 2013  

CIVIL APPEAL (C) NO. 4557 OF 2018  (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.11209 OF 2018               @ SLP(Civil) CC NO. 17047 OF 2013)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4537 OF 2018  (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) NO. 32318 OF  2013)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9202 of 2013  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4538 OF 2018  (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) NO. 36443 OF 2013)  

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4396-4397 OF 2018  (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) NOs. 8818-8819  OF 2015)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4293 of 2014

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4443 OF 2018  (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) NO. 25556 OF  2014)  

3

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4540 OF 2018  (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) NO. 23077 OF  2014)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9167 of 2016  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4444 OF 2018  (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) NO. 28607 OF  2014)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4445 OF 2018  (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) NO. 29978 OF  2014)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4447 OF 2018  (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) NO. 26753  OF  2015)  

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 646-647 of 2015

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4398 OF 2018  (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) NO. 34486 OF  2014)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4399 OF 2018  (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 34487 OF  2014)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 77 of 2015

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4450 OF 2018  (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) NO. 1923 OF 2015)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4452 OF 2018  (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) NO. 312 OF 2015)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4541 OF 2018  (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) NO. 1179 OF 2015)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4455 OF 2018  (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) NO. 13074 OF  2015)  

4

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1951 of 2015

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4544 OF 2018  (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) NO. 26474 OF  2015)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4458 OF 2018  (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) NO. 12558 OF  2015)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4400 OF 2018  (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) NO. 21974 OF  2015)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4542 OF 2018  (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) NO. 20515 OF  2015)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4461 OF 2018  (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) NO. 24213 OF  2015)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9250 of 2015

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4464 OF 2018  (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) NO. 11831 OF  2016)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4427 of 2016

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4611 OF 2018  (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) NO. 31420 OF  2016)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9319 of 2016 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2999 of 2017

CIVIL APPEAL NO.4614 OF 2018  (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) NO. 6983 OF 2017)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2998 of 2017  CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3059 of 2017

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4612 OF 2018  (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) NO. 32723 OF  2016)  

5

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11716 of 2016

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4613 OF 2018  (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) NO. 36154 OF  2016)  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 911 of 2017 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3948 of 2017 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2419 of 2017 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1535 of 2017 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1536 of 2017 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3797 of 2017 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2420 of 2017 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3060 of 2017 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3275 of 2017 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3651 of 2017  

J U D G M E N T R.K. Agrawal, J.

1) Leave granted.

2) These  appeals  have  been  filed  against  the  impugned

judgment and order dated 15.12.2009 passed by the High Court

of  Delhi  in  ITA  Nos.  1244  and  1250  of  2009  whereby  the

Division Bench of  the High Court had dismissed the appeals

filed by the Revenue – the appellant herein while upholding the

order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal  (in short

‘the  Tribunal’)  dated 30.03.2007.  Since  the  moot  question is

same in all the appeals connected with the main matter, the

same would stand disposed off vide this common judgment.

6

Civil Appeal Nos. 8489-8490 of 2013

3) Brief facts:

(a) The  Respondent  –  HCL Technologies  Ltd.  is  a  company

registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in the

business of development and export of computer softwares and

rendering technical services.   

(b) The Respondent has shown gross income from business at

Rs. 267,01,76,529/- while claiming deductions under Section

10A of the IT Act to the tune of Rs. 273,45,39,379/- showing a

net  loss of Rs. 6,43,62,850/-.  The Respondent filed its return

of  income  for  the  Assessment  Year  2004-05  on  01.11.2004

declaring  the  undisclosed  income  at  Rs.  91,25,68,114/-.

Thereafter, on 31.03.2005, a revised return of income for Rs.

91,16,99,060/-  was  filed  by  the  Respondent  which  was

selected for scrutiny under Section 143 of the Income Tax Act,

1961 (in short ‘the IT Act’).  

(c) The Assessing Officer, vide order dated 28.12.2006, held

that  the  software  development  charges,  as  claimed  by  the

Respondent, are nothing but in the nature of expenses incurred

for technical services provided outside India.  Further, in view of

7

the  fact  that  it  is  not  purely  technical  services  and  some

element of software development is also involved in it and in the

absence  of  such  bifurcation,  the  Assessing  Officer  estimated

such  expense  at  the  rate  of  40%  and  remaining  60%  for

providing  technical  services  by  the  Respondent  in  foreign

exchange  to  its  offshore  clients  and  re-assessed  the  taxable

income at Rs. 137,20,34,576/- and penalty to the tune of Rs.

21,81,90,239/-.  

(d) Being aggrieved, the Respondent preferred an appeal being

No.  331/06-07  before  the  Commissioner  of  Income  Tax

(Appeals). Learned CIT (Appeals), vide order dated 09.05.2007,

partly  allowed  the  appeal  while  estimating  10% as  software

development  charge  incurred  for  technical  services  provided

outside  India  as  against   60%  estimated  by  the  Assessing

Officer.  

(e)  Being  aggrieved,  the  Respondent  as  well  as  the  Revenue,

preferred  cross  appeals  being  ITAT  Nos.  3199  and

3344/Del/2007 before the Tribunal.  The Tribunal,  vide order

dated 23.01.2009, dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue

while allowing the appeal of the Respondent.

8

(f) Being aggrieved, the Revenue preferred an appeal before

the High Court being No. ITA No. 1250 of 2009. The High Court,

vide  order  dated  15.12.2009,  dismissed  the  appeal  of  the

Revenue.

(g) Hence, these appeals have been filed before this Court.

4) Heard learned senior counsel for the parties and perused  

the factual matrix of the instant case.

Point(s) for consideration:-

5) The  only  point  for  consideration  before  this  Court  is

whether  in  the  facts  and  circumstances  of  the  case,  the

software development charges are to be excluded while working

out the deduction admissible under Section 10A of the IT Act on

the ground that such charges are relatable towards expenses

incurred on providing technical services outside India?   

Rival contentions:-

6) At  the  outset,  learned  senior  counsel  for  the  Revenue

submitted that  when the total  turnover  is  not  defined under

Section 10A of the IT Act, the ordinary meaning of the words is

to be adopted. As it was a technical term, the technical meaning

of total turnover, which does not envisage the reduction of any

9

expense  from  the  total  amount,  was  to  be  taken  into

consideration for computing deduction under Section 10A of the

IT  Act.  Hence,  the  fact  that  the  Respondent  has  claimed

expenses  like  freight,  telecommunication  and  insurance

attributable  to  the  delivery  of  software  outside  India  total

turnover also, while calculating deduction under Section 10A of

the IT Act, despite the fact that there is no such provision in

Section 10A of the IT Act, is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

Therefore, the impugned decision of the High Court is liable to

be set aside.

7) On the other hand, learned senior counsel appearing for

the  Respondent  submitted  that  the  export  turnover  is  the

numerator whereas the total turnover is the denominator in the

formula for computing profit from exports. The export turnover

as  defined  in  Section  10A  of  the  IT  Act  would  not  include

freight, telecommunication charges or insurance attributable to

the delivery of goods outside India and the expenses incurred in

foreign exchange for providing technical services outside India.

The  same  cannot  be  included  in  the  total  turnover  as  if

numerator  included  the  aforesaid  amount,  which  the

10

denominator  doesn’t  include,  the  formula  would  render

undesirable  results.  Therefore,  the  Respondent  is  legally

entitled  to  exclude  the  above  said  expenses  from  the  total

turnover as well. Hence, these appeals deserve to be dismissed

at the outset.

Discussion:-

8) The whole controversy revolves around the claim of certain

expenses attributable to the delivery of software outside India or

in  providing  technical  services  from  ‘total  turnover’  by  the

Respondent under Section 10A of the IT Act. It is an undisputed

fact that neither Section 10A nor Section 2 of the IT Act define

the term ‘total turnover’. However, the term ‘total turnover’ is

given in clause (ba) of the Explanation to Section 80 HHC of the

IT Act which defines the meaning of total turnover as follows:  

“(ba)  ‘total  turnover’  shall  not  include freight  or insurance attributable  to  the  transport  of  the  goods or  merchandise beyond the customs stations as defined in the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962).

Provided  that  in  relation  to  any  assessment  year commencing  on  or  after  the  1st day  of  April,  1991,  the expression  “total  turnover”  shall  have  effect  as  if  it  also included  any  sum referred  to  in  clauses  (iiia),  (iiib),  (iiic), (iiid) and (iiie) of section 28;”

11

9) It  is  also  pertinent  to  mention  here  the  relevant

terminologies which are as under:

“Export Turnover: Explanation 2(iv) of Section 10A of the IT Act defines “export turnover” to mean the consideration that has been received for export  of  articles/things/computer software.   Normally the consideration will include the freight/telecommunication charges/insurance which had been incurred to deliver the article/things/computer software outside India. However the Explanation 2(iv)  specifically  seeks  to  exclude  these  three categories of expenditure incurred for delivering the export of articles/things/computer software.  It also seeks to exclude expenses for providing technical service, etc. outside India. Therefore,  where  an  Indian  technician  goes  abroad  and receives fees for service, the foreign client will normally be required to reimburse the expenses as well.  Therefore, out of  the  consideration  received,  the  portion  representing reimbursement of expenditure has to be excluded.

Export Turnover and Total turnover: The “total turnover” has been defined in sections 80HHC and 80HHE only to exclude additional items given under section 28. But for this additional exclusion, there was no need to define “total turnover”.

Export  turnover  is  a  component  of  total  turnover.   If  the entire turnover represents export proceeds, then the export turnover and the total turnover are identical.  It is clear that any exclusion in the export turnover in the numerator will automatically  imply  exclusion  in  the  denominator  as  well because  export  turnover  is  always  a  component  of  total turnover.

Export Turnover/Total Turnover/Business: Form 56F prescribes the report under Section 10A for and Annexure-A  thereto  refers  to  “export  proceeds”  and  “sale proceeds”.  Both  together  form  the  total  turnover  of  the undertaking.”  

12

10) The question arises  here  that  when the  particular  term

has not been defined in any particular Section, is it allowed to

import the meaning of such term from the other provisions of

the same Act? Section 10A of the IT Act is a special beneficial

provision and the purpose of deduction under such Section is to

encourage and boost the new business undertakings situated in

the  free  trade  zone  of  this  Nation  by  providing  suitable

deductions  to  such  business  entities.  Sometimes,  while

calculating  the  deduction,  disputes  arise  regarding  the

methodology  of  deduction  which  ought  to  be  followed.

Undisputedly, it is a matter of record that the Respondent is

engaged  in  the  activity  of  trading  of  generic  software  and

providing  customized  software  development  services  for

domestic  as  well  as  for  foreign clients  through its  two units

situated  in  Software  Technology  Park,  Gurgaon  (Now

Gurugram) which falls under the definition of the Section 10A of

the IT Act. The contention of the Respondent is that it incurred

expenditure  in  foreign  exchange  in  sending  professionals

abroad as per the agreements with the foreign constituents.

13

11) On an analysis of the Respondent’s activity taken from its

website,  Assessing  Officer  arrived  at  a  conclusion  that

Respondent has been rendering technical services outside India

and, therefore, expenses incurred on such activity are required

to be excluded from the export turnover while working out the

deduction admissible  under  Section 10A of  the  IT  Act.   The

Assessing Officer  estimated 60% of  the software development

charges required to be attributed towards expenses incurred for

providing technical services outside India. On appeal, learned

CIT (Appeals) again made a detailed analysis of the activity of

the Respondent and arrived at a conclusion that the Assessing

Officer  failed  to  bring  any  evidence  which  can  indicate  that

Respondent was providing technical services outside India and

it has incurred expenses towards salary etc.  on rendering such

services.  Inspite that, learned CIT (Appeals), estimated 10% of

software development charge as charges incurred for technical

services provided outside India.

12) It is undisputed fact that the Respondent was engaged in

the business of software development for its customers engaged

in  different  activities  at  software  development  centres  of  the

14

Respondent.   However,  in  the  process  of  such  customized

software  development,  certain  activities  were  required  to  be

carried out at the sight of customers on site, located outside

India  for  which  the  employees  of  the  branches  of  the

Respondent  located  in  the  country  of  the  customers  are

deployed.  It is true that it is not defined that which activity will

be  termed  as  providing  technical  services  outside  India.

Moreover, after delivery of such softwares as per requirement, in

order  to  make it  fully  functional  and hassle  free  functioning

subsequent to the delivery of  softwares in many cases, there

can be requirement of technical personnel to visit the client on

site.  The Assessing Officer could not bring any evidence that

the  Respondent  was  engaged  in  providing  simply  technical

services independent to software development for the client for

which the expenditures were incurred outside India in foreign

currency.   

13) The  Respondent  company  has  claimed deduction  under

Section 10A as  per  certificates  filed  on Form No.  56F.   The

Respondent,  while  computing  the  deduction,  has  taken  the

same  figure  of  export  turnover  as  of  total  turnover.   The

15

Respondent  cited  various  judicial  cases  but  all  these  cases

pertain  to  deduction  under  Section  80HHC.   Further,  the

definition of total turnover has been defined in Section 80HHC

and 80HHE of the IT Act. As discussed earlier, the definition of

total turnover has not been defined under Section 10A of the IT

Act.   

14) In  the  above  backdrop,  we  are  of  the  opinion  that  the

definition of  total  turnover  given under  Sections 80HHC and

80HHE cannot be adopted for the purpose of Section 10A as the

technical  meaning of total  turnover,  which does not envisage

the reduction of any expenses from the total amount, is to be

taken  into  consideration  for  computing  the  deduction  under

Section 10A. When the meaning is clear, there is no necessity of

importing  the  meaning  of  total  turnover  from  the  other

provisions.  If a term is defined under Section 2 of the IT Act,

then the  definition  would  be  applicable  to  all  the  provisions

wherein the same term appears. As the term ‘total turnover’ has

been defined in the Explanation to Section 80HHC and 80HHE,

wherein it has been clearly stated that “for the purposes of this

Section only”, it would be applicable only for the purposes of

16

that  Sections  and  not  for  the  purpose  of  Section  10A.   If

denominator  includes  certain  amount  of  certain  type  which

numerator  does  not  include,  the  formula  would  render

undesirable results.

15) A Statute is the intention of the legislature who enacts it

after having regard to various facts and circumstances. It is a

cardinal principle of  law that the interpretation by the Court

shall be done in such a way that the intention of the legislature

shall  prevail  and no injustice  occurred with the  parties.  The

rule  of  harmonious  construction  is  the  thumb  rule  to

interpretation of any statute. An interpretation which makes the

enactment a consistent whole, should be the aim of the Courts

and a construction which avoids inconsistency or repugnancy

between the various sections or parts of the statue should be

adopted.  

16) In Commissioner of Income Tax vs. J.H. Gotla, (1985)

23 Taxman 14J (SC) this Court has held as under:

“46.  Where  the  plain  literal  interpretation  of  a  statutory provision produces a manifestly unjust result  which could never  have  been  intended  by  the  Legislature,  the  Court might modify the language used by the Legislature so as to achieve  the  intention  of  the  Legislature  and  produce  a rational construction. The task of interpretation of statutory

17

provision  is  an  attempt  to  discover  the  intention  of  the Legislature from the language used….  47   ….If  the  purpose  of  a  particular  provision  is  easily discernible from the whole scheme of the Act which, in the present case, was to counteract, the effect of the transfer of assets so far as computation of income of the Respondent was  concerned,  then  bearing  that  purpose  in  mind,  the intention should be found out from the language used by the Legislature  and  if  strict  literal,  construction  leads  to  an absurd result, i.e. result not intended to be subserved by the object of the legislation found out in the manner indicated above, then if other construction is possible apart from strict literal  construction,  then  that  construction  should  be preferred to the strict literal construction. Though equity an taxation are often strangers , attempt should be made that these  do  not  remain  so  always  so  and  if  a  construction results  in  equity  rather  than  in  injustice  ,  then  such construction should be preferred to the literal construction. Furthermore,  in  the  instant  case,  we are  dealing  with an artificial liability created for counteracting the effect only of attempts  by  the  assessee  to  reduce  tax  liability  by transfer….”

17) The similar  nature of  controversy,  akin this  case,  arose

before the Karnataka High Court in CIT vs. Tata Elxsi Ltd.

(2012)  204 Taxman 321/17.  The issue before  the  Karnataka

High Court was whether the Tribunal was correct in holding

that while computing relief under Section10A of the IT Act, the

amount of  communication expenses should be excluded from

the  total  turnover  if  the  same  are  reduced  from  the  export

turnover? While giving the answer to the issue, the High Court,

inter-alia, held that when a particular word is not defined by the

18

legislature and an ordinary meaning is to be attributed to it, the

said ordinary meaning is to be in conformity with the context in

which it is used. Hence, what is excluded from ‘export turnover’

must also be excluded from ‘total  turnover’,  since one of  the

components  of  ‘total  turnover’  is  export  turnover.  Any  other

interpretation would run counter to the legislative intent and

would be impermissible.  

18) Accordingly, the formula for computation of the deduction

under Section10A of the Act would be as follows:

Export turnover as  defined  in  Explanation  2  (IV)  of Section  10A  of  IT  Act  

Export Profit = total Profit of the Business X _____________________________ Export turnover as defined in Explanation  2(IV)  of  Section 10A of the IT Act + domestic sale proceeds  

19) In  the  instant  case,  if  the  deductions  on  freight,

telecommunication and insurance attributable to the delivery of

computer software under Section10A of the IT Act are allowed

only in Export Turnover but not from the Total Turnover then, it

would  give  rise  to  inadvertent,  unlawful,  meaningless  and

illogical  result  which  would  cause  grave  injustice  to  the

19

Respondent which could have never been the intention of the

legislature.  

20) Even in common parlance, when the object of the formula

is  to  arrive  at  the  profit  from  export  business,  expenses

excluded from export turnover have to be excluded from total

turnover  also.  Otherwise,  any other  interpretation makes the

formula unworkable and absurd. Hence, we are satisfied that

such deduction shall be allowed from the total turnover in same

proportion as well.

21) On the issue of expenses on technical  services provided

outside, we have to follow the same principle of interpretation

as  followed  in  the  case  of  expenses  of  freight,

telecommunication  etc.,  otherwise  the  formula  of  calculation

would be futile. Hence, in the same way, expenses incurred in

foreign  exchange  for  providing  the  technical  services  outside

shall be allowed to exclude from the total turnover.

20

22) In view of above discussion, we are of the considered view

that these instant appeals are devoid of merits and deserve to

be  dismissed.  Accordingly,  all  the  connected  matters  and

interlocutory applications, if any, are disposed of with no order

as to costs.

…….....…………………………………J.         (R.K. AGRAWAL)

…….…………….………………………J.        (R. BANUMATHI)

NEW DELHI; APRIL  24, 2018.  

21