9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The judgment involves the denial of exemption claimed by the assessee under section 10A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2002-2003 based on various grounds raised by the Assessing Officer. Assessee's Claim under Section 10A: The appellant, a Company engaged in the export of Computer Software, claimed income earned from the business for exemption under section 10A. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) denied the exemption citing multiple reasons including change in company name, failure to fulfill import and purchase conditions, lack of corresponding expenditure, business premises shared with other businesses, absence of bills for expenses, lack of overseas calls, and insufficient details to justify export-oriented status. Contentions Before Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals): The assessee contended that it complied with all conditions stipulated under section 10A and by Software Technology Parks of India (STPI). The company provided evidence of genuine software exports, including approval documents, certificates, and declarations. The A.O.'s rejection was deemed based on assumptions and prejudicial mind, with no adverse findings against the company's activities. Decision of Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals): The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) allowed the deduction under section 10A after examining the evidence provided by the appellant. It was noted that the company followed the required procedures for name change and had fulfilled all conditions stipulated by STPI. The Commissioner found no justification for the denial of exemption and directed the A.O. to allow the claim under section 10A. Appeal Before Appellate Tribunal: The Revenue appealed against the Commissioner's order, arguing that the A.O.'s reasons for denying the exemption were valid. The Departmental Representative contended that the company failed to explain the transmission of software to customers and changes made in the software, thus justifying the denial of the claim under section 10A. Tribunal's Decision: The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's order, noting that objections raised by the A.O. were adequately addressed. The company's registration with STPI, approval as an Export Oriented Unit, and genuine software exports were supported by documentary evidence. The change in company name was duly approved, and qualifications of Directors were certified. Considering the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal agreed with the Commissioner's decision to allow the exemption under section 10A, ultimately dismissing the Revenue's appeal.
|
