2016 (1) TMI 938 - AT - Income Tax

Deduction under section 10A denied - Held that - As relying onassessee s own case for the assessment year 2006-07 to 2009-10 2015 (4) TMI 1059 - ITAT CHENNAI the assessee is entitled for deduction under section 10A of the Act. However, the claim shall be restricted only to 50% in view of the provisions of section 10A(1A) of the Act.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Denial of deduction under section 10A of the Income Tax Act.
2. Alternative claim for deduction under section 10AA of the Income Tax Act.
3. Disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Denial of Deduction under Section 10A of the Income Tax Act:
The primary issue was whether the assessee was entitled to a deduction under section 10A of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer (AO) denied the deduction, arguing that the assessee was not engaged in manufacturing or software development activities. The AO noted that the assessee acted as an intermediary between overseas customers and Indian manufacturers, sourcing auto parts and providing technical drawings, but did not have the necessary infrastructure for manufacturing.

The assessee contended that it was engaged in manufacturing and IT-enabled services, citing its registration with MEPZ and activities such as software development, web-based solutions, and manufacturing and exporting auto parts. The assessee argued that it supervised manufacturing activities, prepared technical drawings, and assembled and packaged products for export, thus qualifying as a manufacturer.

The Tribunal referred to the assessee's previous cases for assessment years 2006-07 to 2009-10, where it was held that the assessee was entitled to the deduction under section 10A. The Tribunal found that the assessee's activities, including creating and maintaining websites, developing ERP software, and providing back-office operations, qualified as IT-enabled services. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee exercised control over the manufacturing process through job workers, aligning with the precedent set by the Madras High Court in CIT v. Elgi Ultra Industries Ltd.

Given these findings, the Tribunal concluded that the assessee was entitled to the deduction under section 10A but restricted the claim to 50% as per section 10A(1A).

2. Alternative Claim for Deduction under Section 10AA of the Income Tax Act:
The assessee alternatively claimed a deduction under section 10AA. However, the counsel for the assessee conceded that the deduction under section 10AA was not applicable. Consequently, this ground of appeal was dismissed.

3. Disallowance under Section 14A Read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Act:
The final issue was the disallowance of Rs. 8,125 under section 14A read with Rule 8D for expenses incurred on earning exempt income. The counsel for the assessee chose not to press this issue due to the smallness of the amount involved. Therefore, this ground of appeal was also dismissed.

Conclusion:
The appeal was partly allowed. The Tribunal upheld the assessee's entitlement to a deduction under section 10A, restricted to 50%, and dismissed the alternative claim under section 10AA and the disallowance under section 14A. The order was pronounced in the open court on 18.12.2015.