Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (3) TMI 353 - AT - Income TaxDenial of deduction under section 10A - eight separate undertakings being considered as one undertaking and not separate undertaking - Held that - Claim of deduction cannot be denied unless claim is withdrawn right from the initial assessment year. Respectfully following the decisions of the CIT vs. Paul Brothers 1992 (10) TMI 5 - BOMBAY High Court and case of Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries Ltd 1979 (2) TMI 21 - GUJARAT High Court , we set aside the findings of Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to allow the claim of deduction as made by the assessee under section 10A of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee. Disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) - depreciation claim on software purchased by the assessee - AO found that no TDS has been made on this amount on the ground that the purchases are outside India for outside India - CIT(A) held that AO is incorrect in holding that the assessee has claimed the entire expenditure of ₹ 20,59,671/- as a revenue and restricted the disallowance only to the claim of depreciation of ₹ 6,17,901/- - Held that - It is an undisputed fact that the assessee has only claimed depreciation and not the entire expenditure. The Tribunal Delhi Bench in the case of SMG Demag (P) (2010 (1) TMI 624 - ITAT, DELHI ) has held that provisions of section 40(a)are not applicable for claim of deduction of depreciation under section 32 of the Act. Payments for purchase of software without deduction tax will not be subject to the provisions of Section 40(a)(i) of the Act.Further, if a similar domestic transaction was made during the year under consideration, it would not have attracted the liability for TDS. Therefore, in the light of the non-discriminatory clause in the Treaty a similar international transaction would also not attract liability of the TDS. - Decided in favour of assessee. Addition on account of arbitration settlement claim - CIT(A) deleted addition - Held that - It is an undisputed fact that the liability of ₹ 15 lacs Britain Pounds is based on arbitration award dated 10/3/2006. Only a time table has been given for making the payment but the liability has been crystallized during the year under consideration itself and, therefore, the assessee is entitlted for the claim of deduction of the full liability during the year itself. We, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of Ld. CIT(A). - Decided against revenue. Addition in respect of unbilled software income - CIT(A) deleted addition - Held that - . As the Ld. CIT(A) has followed the decision of the Tribunal in assessee s own case for A.Y 2002-03 no interference is called for.- Decided against revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Denial of deduction under section 10A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Disallowance under section 40(a)(i) regarding depreciation claim on software. 3. Addition on account of arbitration settlement claim. 4. Addition under section 14A read with Rule 8D. 5. Addition in respect of unbilled software income. 6. Computation of book profit under section 115JB. 7. Recompilation of deduction under section 10A. 8. Addition on account of service charges recovered from a 100% subsidiary. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Denial of Deduction under Section 10A: The assessee's appeal (ITA No. 3517/MUM/2012) challenges the denial of deduction under section 10A for eight undertakings considered as one. The AO denied the claim, asserting the units were part of a single integrated business and not new units. The CIT(A) allowed the claim for three units, recognizing them as separate undertakings. The Tribunal, referencing past decisions and the principle that without disturbing the initial year's deduction, subsequent years' claims cannot be denied, directed the AO to allow the deduction for all units. 2. Disallowance under Section 40(a)(i): The AO disallowed Rs. 6,17,901/- under section 40(a)(i) related to depreciation on software purchased by foreign branches without TDS. The CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to the depreciation amount. The Tribunal, agreeing with the assessee, noted that section 40(a)(i) does not apply to depreciation claims and directed the deletion of the disallowance. 3. Addition on Account of Arbitration Settlement Claim: The AO disallowed Rs. 15,25,91,438/- claimed based on an arbitration award, arguing that only a portion was payable in the relevant financial year. The CIT(A) allowed the claim, stating the liability had crystallized during the year. The Tribunal upheld this, recognizing the liability based on the arbitration award. 4. Addition under Section 14A read with Rule 8D: The AO made additions under section 14A read with Rule 8D for disallowance related to dividend income. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, and the Tribunal upheld this, noting no disallowance was made in previous or subsequent years under similar circumstances. 5. Addition in Respect of Unbilled Software Income: The AO added Rs. 8,15,75,087/- for unbilled software income, which the CIT(A) deleted following the Tribunal's decision in earlier years. The Tribunal upheld this deletion, finding no reason to deviate from the established precedent. 6. Computation of Book Profit under Section 115JB: The Tribunal noted this issue is consequential to the decision on the section 10A deduction. The AO was directed to recompute the book profit after giving effect to the Tribunal's order on section 10A. 7. Recompilation of Deduction under Section 10A: This issue was directly related to the decision on the section 10A deduction. As the Tribunal allowed the deduction claim, this ground was dismissed. 8. Addition on Account of Service Charges Recovered from 100% Subsidiary: The AO added service charges recovered from a subsidiary. The CIT(A) followed the Tribunal's earlier decisions favoring the assessee. The Tribunal upheld this, finding no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s decision. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal on the major issues of section 10A deduction and disallowance under section 40(a)(i). The Revenue's appeal was partly allowed, with specific grounds dismissed based on established precedents and factual matrices.
|