Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (12) TMI 400 - ITAT HYDERABADDeduction u/s.10A - Inclusion of foreign exchange fluctuation gain for the purpose of export turnover - HELD THAT:- The ‘principle of parity’ demands inclusion of such gains in the definition of export turnover when the same are included in the definition of total turnover. The said principle stands now consolidated by the order in HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD. [2018 (5) TMI 357 - SUPREME COURT] Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Pentasoft Technologies Ltd. [2010 (7) TMI 75 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] is for treating the said foreign exchange fluctuation gains as part of the export sales for the purpose of deduction u/s.10A . Both on merits, such gain constitutes eligible income for the purpose of deduction. Therefore, the principle of parity demands inclusion of the said gains in both the denominator as well as the numerator of the formula laid down for the purpose of quantification of deduction u/s.10A of the Act. Accordingly, Ground No.2 is allowed as covered. Allowability of benefit of deduction claimed u/s.10A of the Act on the revenue account, corresponding to 12% of cross charges made by the assessee to its overseas foreign company (ATI Canada) - HELD THAT:- As considered the arguments of assessee on the applicability of ‘principle of consistency’. The said rule demands that no disturbance is to be caused for in the assessment years when the facts of the issue are identical. In this regard, we also considered the binding judgment of CIT Vs. Gopal Purohit [2010 (1) TMI 7 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT]. Despite the labour demonstrated by the Ld.DR for the Revenue, we find that no differential facts were brought to our notice for the AO to deviate from his line of accepting the claim of assessee in the past years. When the facts and circumstances are identical, the AO should be barred from taking a different view in the matter. The ‘principle of res judicata’ is not attracted considering the ‘principle of consistency’. Therefore, without going to the merits of the issue i.e., allowability or otherwise of the said parties, we are of the opinion that on the legal principle of consistency itself, the assessee should get relief. Accordingly, Ground No.3 is allowed.
|