Matching Fragments
"The AO has further pointed out that the payments realized as
the FIRCs have the description that the payments were made to
the appellant as advances and not for rendering services. Since,
the appellant is having only one customer and the payments
received cannot be considered as advance when there being
outstanding invoices for realization. Here in the case, it is
pertinent of mention that the FIRCs are being issued by the bank
and mere mentioning of advances by the bank in the FIRCs does
not change the nature of the transactions that have been taken
place between the customer and the appellant. However, as per
the assessment order the AO has considered the payments which
were realized within 6 months i.e. upto the end of September
2009 for the purpose of export turnover even though the FIRCs
has mentioned as advance. Thus, the stand taken by AO in
considering some payments as eligible but rejecting similar
nomenclature in other FIRCs though everywhere the uniformly
mentioned the word 'Advance' instead of the phrase 'payment
against the services received' obviously not right. The differential
ITA 1526/Chny/2024 & CO 48/Chny/2024
Toppan Merrill Technology Services Pvt Ltd., Chennai.
Month USD INR Realisation Relevant FIRC NO
FIRC Date
date
December 186,744 9,153,753 1.3130908211-02269
(Part 2. 3130909231-02510
amount)
January 551,865 27,065,467 24-Sep-09 25-Sep-09 2.3130909231-02510
22-Oct-09 23-Oct-09 (same FIRC as above)
21-Oct-09 13-Nov-09
25-Nov-09 26-Nov-09 3.3130910211-02057
(23-Oct-09)
4.3130910211-02058
(23-Oct-09)
5.409102100092
6. 409112500006
February 798,947 40,044,292 23-Jul-09 24-Jul-09 7.3130907221-02025
25-Nov-09 26-Nov-09
04-Dec-09 05-Dec-09 6.409112500006 (As
ITA 1526/Chny/2024 & CO 48/Chny/2024
Toppan Merrill Technology Services Pvt Ltd., Chennai.
23-Dec-09 24-Dec-09 continued from the
27-Jan-10 28-Jan-10 above FIRC)
29-Jan-10
8.409120300064
9.3130912221-02768
10. 410012700468
(27-Jan-10)
11. 410012700465
(27-Jan-10)
March 877,245 45,102,494 27-Jan-10 29-Jan-10 11.410012700465 (As
17-Feb-10 18-Feb-10 continued from the
24-Feb-10 25-Feb-10 above FIRC)
12.410012700466
13. 410022400210
Total 2,414,801 121,366,006
d. There is no dispute on the actual receipt of remittances
within the 12-month period permitted by the RBI.
"The Ld. AO had not pointed out specific remittances
which are not received in India within 12 months from
the invoice date."
e. The erroneous nomenclature of the remittances on the
FIRC cannot be the basis for denial of the deduction
claimed under section 10A of the Act
"The AO has further pointed out that the payments
realized as per the FIRCs have the description of
'advances' and not 'for rendering services'. Since, the
Respondent Company is having only one customer and
the payments received cannot be considered as advance
when there being outstanding invoices for realization.
FIRCs are being issued by the bank and mere mentioning
of advances by the bank in the FIRCs does not change
the nature of the transactions that have been taken place
between the customer and the Respondent Company.
