9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (4) TMI 870 - AT - Income TaxDeduction u/s 10B - assessee engaged in providing varieties of services of software development, quality assurance and testing services, support services - AO denied exemption claimed u/s 10B on various grounds - Held that - On contention of Revenue that services like quality assurance and code testing is not covered u/s 10B and Notification No. 11521 it is held that assessee is doing back office operations for its clients which is covered as per Notification No. 50890 (E) dated 26.9.2000 notifying that a number of I.T. enabled sources such as back office operations, call centers, data process etc. would qualify as computer software for the purposes of section 10A/10B Non availability of production data - Held that - Denial of exemption on this ground has no merit in view of the assessee carrying out back office operations for it clients, which is project of service industry for which production data is not maintainable. Restructuring of business already in existence as the assessee was found to be operating from three different places and no new computers were purchased by the assessee for carrying on its business of computer software - Held that - Assessee was carrying on its business from Unit I at SPIC Centre, Chandigarh and Unit II at Sector 34-A, Chandigarh. The address of Mohali was only a registered office of the assessee company from which no activity was carried out by the assessee company. There is no restructuring of business of the assessee. Further, the assessee having carried out its work on the loaned equipments and evidence in respect of which was considered by the CIT(A), the assessee is entitled to the claim of deduction u/s 10B of the Act. Invoices do not bear the address of the unit from which such invoices had been issued - Held that - The assessee with its registered office at Mohali and its Unit I and Unit II at Chandigarh was operating as a composite unit and there is no requirement to furnish the addresses of the individual places from which services were rendered as against the mentioning of registered office on the invoices issued by the assessee. No approval from the Board appointed by the Central Government for 100% EOU status - Held that - CIT(A) held the status of 100% EOU to be granted to the assessee on the basis of approval letter from STPI as 100% EOU status given to assessee company placed by assessee. Since Revenue before us has failed to point out any contrary evidence to the same hence we hold that assessee is eligible to the exemption claimed u/s 10B. Understatement of profits - Held that - We find that the total remuneration declared by the assessee is backed by the bills raised by the assessee as per the terms of agreement between the parties, which in turn are open for scrutiny before the STPI authorities, which had recognized the status of the assessee to be 100% EOU. In the gamit of evidence available on record, we find no merit in the rejection of the book results shown by the assessee from year to year. The Assessing Officer in any case had failed to bring any contrary record except for its contention that the profits shown by the assessee were relatively on a higher side for period starting October 2004, which in any case were on account of change in the remuneration clause. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to accept the results shown by the assessee in the captioned years i.e. assessment years 2005-06 to 2007-08 as the profits of the eligible business, which in turn are entitled to the benefit of exemption u/s 10B of the Act. Dis-allowance u/s 69C - Held that - The provisions of section 69C are not attracted in the present case as there is no finding of the AO of the assessee having incurred such expenditure for earning of the receipts of the eligible business. The addition was made on the presumption that in order to earn such higher revenues, the assessee is deemed to have incurred such an expenditure. Dis-allowance u/s 14A - AO dis-allowed 10% of personal and administrative expenses incurred by the assessee as being relatable to the earning said dividend income - Held that - The said disallowance is on a higher side hence we restrict the dis-allowance to Rs. 2 lacs, keeping in view the quantum of dividend income earned by the assessee - Appeal are partly allowed
Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility for deduction under section 10B of the Income Tax Act. 2. Estimation of profits and excessive profits under section 10B(7) read with section 80IA(10). 3. Disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act. 4. Addition under section 69C of the Income Tax Act. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Eligibility for Deduction Under Section 10B The assessee claimed exemption under section 10B for its income from software development and related services. The Assessing Officer (AO) denied the exemption, citing several reasons: 1. The services rendered (quality assurance and code testing) were not covered under the definition of "computer software" as per Explanation 2(i) of section 10B and Notification No. 11521. 2. The assessee did not maintain production records. 3. The business was allegedly formed by restructuring an existing business. 4. Lack of approval from the Board appointed by the Central Government. 5. Incomplete filing of required forms and invoices not bearing the address of the issuing unit. 6. Discrepancies in payment terms and actual receipts. 7. Inconsistencies in remuneration as per consulting agreements. The CIT(A) allowed the exemption, noting that the assessee's activities qualified under the notified IT-enabled services and that the business restructuring and equipment loaning were justified. The Tribunal upheld this decision, confirming that the assessee's services fell within the scope of section 10B and that the approvals and operational details were satisfactory. Issue 2: Estimation of Profits and Excessive Profits Under Section 10B(7) Read with Section 80IA(10) The AO invoked section 10B(7) to recompute profits, alleging that the profits shown were excessive due to close connections with an associated enterprise. The AO re-estimated profits at lower rates (17% and 22%) for different periods, leading to significant additions. The CIT(A) partially upheld the AO's view but adjusted the profit rates. The Tribunal, however, found that the profits were in line with the terms of the consulting agreements and supported by STPI approvals. The Tribunal directed the AO to accept the declared profits for the eligible business under section 10B, dismissing the re-estimation. Issue 3: Disallowance Under Section 14A The AO disallowed Rs. 5,54,752/- under section 14A, attributing it to expenses incurred for earning exempt dividend income. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance. The Tribunal, referencing the Bombay High Court's decision in Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. DCIT, held that while some disallowance was warranted, the amount determined by the AO was excessive. The Tribunal reduced the disallowance to Rs. 2 lakhs, considering the quantum of dividend income. Issue 4: Addition Under Section 69C The AO made an addition of Rs. 48,22,679/- under section 69C, presuming that the assessee incurred unrecorded expenses to earn higher profits. The CIT(A) deleted this addition, and the Tribunal upheld this deletion, noting that section 69C applies only when there is evidence of unaccounted expenditure, which was not the case here. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded by partly allowing the assessee's appeal for the assessment year 2005-06 and fully allowing the appeals for 2006-07 and 2007-08. The Revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross objections for 2005-06 were dismissed. The Tribunal's detailed analysis reaffirmed the assessee's eligibility for section 10B exemption, corrected the profit estimation, and adjusted the disallowance under section 14A while dismissing the addition under section 69C.
|
