2013 (10) TMI 1418 - HC - Income Tax

Assessee is entitled to exemption under Section 10AA - Hon ble Tribunal (ITAT) is correct in law in upholding the finding of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that the trading activity carried on by the SEZ unit of the respondent assessee is to be considered as services eligible for exemption under Section 10AA of the Income Tax Act by relying on the definition of services as per SEZ Rules.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of trading activity as "services" for exemption under Section 10AA of the Income Tax Act.
2. Reliance on Ministry of Commerce instructions for exemption under Section 10AA without statutory amendment.
3. Eligibility for exemption under Section 10AA for trading activity without manufacturing or providing services.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The appeal questioned whether the Tribunal correctly upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)'s finding that the trading activity by the SEZ unit qualifies as "services" for exemption under Section 10AA. The appellant argued against considering trading as services under the SEZ Rules. The High Court, after reviewing the facts, supported the Tribunal's decision. The Court emphasized that when the CIT(A)'s interpretation is deemed correct, there is no basis for interference under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act.

Issue 2:
The second issue raised the validity of the Tribunal's reliance on Ministry of Commerce instructions for granting exemption under Section 10AA without a corresponding amendment to the Income Tax Act. The appellant contested the applicability of these instructions to the case. The High Court noted the Tribunal's reference to a Kerala High Court decision in a similar matter, indicating that the instructions were relevant. The Court found the appellant's argument regarding trading versus manufacturing to be a factual consideration appropriately addressed by the lower authorities.

Issue 3:
The final issue concerned the eligibility for exemption under Section 10AA for a trading activity without any manufacturing or service provision. The appellant contended that trading alone should not qualify for the exemption. The High Court reiterated that factual determinations by lower authorities are generally not disturbed unless proven erroneous. In this case, no evidence of factual misrepresentation was presented, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal after affirming the Tribunal's decision on the interpretation of trading activity as services for Section 10AA exemption, reliance on Ministry of Commerce instructions, and eligibility for exemption without manufacturing or service provision. The Court emphasized the importance of factual findings and upheld the lower authorities' decisions in the absence of evidence proving factual errors.