9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (12) TMI 179X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... determining the income after making certain additions. In the process, deduction to the petitioner was also granted under Section 10A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It was on the basis that the petitioner company is engaged in the business of rendering IT enabled services and it had established undertakings under Software Technology Park Scheme (STPS) in various areas notified under the said scheme to carry out IT enabled services and was accordingly held eligible for the deduction under Section 10A of the Act. However, this assessment was re-opened by issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act on the ground that the computation of aforesaid deduction was wrongly made inasmuch as computation of deduction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enge to the same. In nutshell, in respect of assessment year 2003-04, a demand of Rs.17.98 crores was raised on the petitioner only because the Assessing Officer declined to follow the ITAT order in the petitioner's own case for assessment year 2004-05 with respect to the computation of benefit under Section 10A of the Act. 2. The writ petition was filed on the ground that the aforesaid amount of Rs.17,98,64,094/- for the assessment year 2003-04 could not be adjusted against refund of assessment year 2010-2011. It was illegal as this was done without any notice to the petitioner and affording any opportunity of hearing though it is mandatory requirement under Section 245 of the Act. 3. It is not in dispute that no such notice under Sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a component of total turnover, consequently when the telecommunication charges have been specifically excluded from export turnover and it being a component of total turnover, it stands to reason that telecommunication charges have also to be excluded from total turnover. While holding this view, this Court concurred with the decision rendered by Bombay High Court in CIT v. Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd., [2011] 330 ITR 175 (Bom) and that of Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Tata Elxsi Ltd., ITA No.70/2009 decided on 30.8.2011. 5. The position which emerges is that the said adjustment/recovery was of an amount of demand relating to an issue which was decided in favour of petitioner by the ITAT order and also the judgment of this court in peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
