9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (10) TMI 1395 - AT - Income TaxBenefit u/s. 10A - Held that - As decided in assessee s own case for A.Y. 2007-08 as can be seen from the order of the DRP, though they have accepted the fact that the Chennai unit is not formed by reconstruction of the Hyderabad unit, but, they ultimately held that Chennai Unit and Hyderabad Unit are not two distinct and independent units. However, on perusal of the aforesaid order of the coordinate Bench, we find that the issue in dispute has been set at rest and decided in favour of the assessee. Therefore, following the decision of the coordinate Bench, we allow the ground of the assessee and direct the AO to allow benefit u/s. 10A of the Act to the Chennai Unit. Amount of statutory disallowance has to be considered as business profit eligible for deduction u/s. 10A of the Act. Communication charges, insurance charges and reimbursement of expenses attributable to the delivery of computer software outside India, are to be reduced from the export turnover then the same should as well be reduced from total turnover while computing deduction u/s. 10A of the Act.
Issues:
1. Assessment order inconsistency regarding formation of Chennai unit. 2. Disallowance of software license fees under section 40(a)(ia). 3. Deduction under section 10A for communication and insurance charges. 4. Reimbursement of expenses to Virtusa Corporation, USA for technical services. 5. Treatment of reimbursement of expenses by associated enterprises. 6. Treatment of statutory disallowances for deduction under section 10A. Issue 1: Assessment Order Inconsistency The appeal challenged the assessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) for the A.Y. 2008-09, focusing on the formation of the Chennai unit. The appellant argued that the Chennai unit's status was inconsistently assessed by the AO, contending it was either formed by splitting up or reconstruction of the Hyderabad unit in different assessment years. The Tribunal referred to a previous case where it was held that the Chennai and Hyderabad units were not distinct entities, favoring the assessee's claim for deduction under section 10A. Issue 2: Disallowance of Software License Fees The issue revolved around the disallowance of annual software license fees paid to Ingram Micro India Private Limited under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act. The appellant argued against the disallowance, citing retrospective tax withholding liability and the eligibility of the fees for deduction under section 10A. Eventually, the appellant withdrew this ground, leading to its dismissal. Issue 3: Deduction for Communication and Insurance Charges The appellant contested the treatment of communication and insurance charges for the delivery of computer software outside India concerning the deduction under section 10A. The Tribunal directed the AO to reduce these charges from both export turnover and total turnover for computing the deduction, aligning with precedents set by previous judgments. Issue 4: Reimbursement of Expenses to Virtusa Corporation The issue involved reimbursement of expenses to Virtusa Corporation, USA, for providing technical services outside India. The Tribunal, following established precedents, directed the AO to deduct this amount from both export turnover and total turnover for computing the deduction under section 10A. Issue 5: Treatment of Reimbursement by Associated Enterprises The AO had added the reimbursement of expenses by associated enterprises to the total turnover and export turnover for calculating the deduction under section 10A. The Tribunal allowed the appellant's claim, directing the AO to consider these additions while computing the deduction. Issue 6: Treatment of Statutory Disallowances The appellant argued that statutory disallowances should be considered as business profits eligible for deduction under section 10A. The Tribunal agreed, citing relevant judgments and directing the AO to include these disallowances in the computation of the deduction. In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed the appellant's appeal, addressing various issues related to the assessment order, disallowances, deductions, and treatment of expenses, aligning its decisions with established legal principles and precedents.
|
