9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 488X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to frame a question. - Decided against the Revenue Entitlement of the Assessee to the deduction under Section 80HHE - Assessee has established a Shared Service Centre (“SSC”) at Gurgaon for rendering information technology related services and business process management services for which it claimed deduction under Section 80 HHE - According to the AO, no deduction under Section 10A would be allowed to the Assessee either for the same or any subsequent assessment year since it had claimed deduction under Section 80HHE of the Act in AY 2000-01. - CIT (A) reversed the order of the AO and restored the matter to the file of the AO with the direction to allow the exemption under Section 10A also confirmed by ITAT - Held that:- The decisions of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Interra Software India (P) Ltd. (2010 (12) TMI 142 - DELHI HIGH COURT), Commissioner of Income-tax v. Damco Solutions (P) Ltd. [2010 (10) TMI 592 - DELHI HIGH COURT ] and Commissioner of Income Tax v. EDS Electronics Data Systems (India) (P) Ltd. (2012 (11) TMI 586 - DELHI HIGH COURT) answer the question in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue. These decisions explain that the making of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ement services for which it claimed deduction under Section 80 HHE of the Act. 8. The Assessee filed its return of income for AY 2000-01 on 30th November 2000 declaring an income of ₹ 5,28,590. The case was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act and a notice was issued to it under Section 143(2) of the Act on 27th November 2001. 9. The Assessing Officer ( AO ), in the order dated 30th December 2002 for AY 2000-01, noted that the business activities at the SDC unit at Chennai had resulted in a loss of ₹ 23,49,473 and, therefore, the Assessee was not eligible for exemption under Section 10A of the Act. 10. As regards the activities at the SSC unit at Gurgaon, the Assessee had earned an income of ₹ 4,25,60,064. However, after adjustment of business losses the gross total income was nil . Accordingly, the Assessee did not claim any deduction under Section 80HHE in the computation of the income. However, for computation of minimum alternate tax ( MAT ), the Assessee claimed a deduction of ₹ 4,20,31,476 under Section 80HHE of the Act. After making other adjustments in terms of Section 115 JA of the Act, the book profit was declared as nil and no MAT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the time period stipulated under Section 139(5) of the Act i.e. by 31st March 2002, the CIT (A) held that the AO was justified in rejecting the claim made by the Assessee under the revised computation. 14. By the impugned order dated 20th October 2014 in ITA No. 902/Del/2014, the ITAT allowed the Assessee s plea. The ITAT noted that in the revised computation the loss shown for the Section 10A unit in the sum of ₹ 23,49,473 was revised at an income of ₹ 2,29,61,884 for the reason that a receipt by the Section 10A unit of a sum of 6,78,042 US Dollars ( USD ) was not converted into rupees while preparing the computation of income. The receipt of the aforementioned 6,78,042 USD when converted into rupees worked out to ₹ 2,95,76,197. Once the correct figure was adopted, the loss from the Section 10A unit got converted into a profit in the manner computed shown in the revised computation of income. The ITAT was of the view that this was not a case where the Assessee had not made a claim under Section 10A in the original return of income and, therefore, the above correction did not result in the Assessee making any fresh claim. It was merely a case where a loss de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is required to be determined is the taxable income of the Assessee in accordance with law. In Influence v. Commissioner of Income Tax (supra) a similar approach was adopted when the AO in that case refused to accept the revised computation submitted beyond the time limit for filing the revised return under Section 139(5) of the Act. This Court noted that the decision in Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra) would not apply if the Assessee had not made a new claim but had asked for re-computation of the deduction. 18. Turning to the facts of the present case, as rightly noted by the ITAT itself, this is not a case where any new claim for deduction under Section 10A of the Act has been made by the Assessee. This claim had been made in the original return itself. It is only the figure of profit that was changed in the revised computation as a result of wrongly showing a receipt in USDs without converting it into rupees. The ITAT has, in fact, remitted the matter back to the file of the AO to compute the deduction in accordance with law. 19. The Court does not see any prejudice being caused to the Revenue as a result of the above directions. It is consistent with the law explained by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
