9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1184X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... law are framed for consideration: "(1) Whether the Tribunal is right in law in holding that Section 10A is a deduction provision and not an exemption provision? (2) Whether the Tribunal is right in law in holding that for computing deduction under Section 10A of the Act, brought forward losses should first be deducted from the total income of the current year and thereafter the deduction u/s 10A of the Act should be allowed?" 4. The facts in brief are that the Assessee provides back office services/services/ remote data entry services, establishing and promoting call centre services for customers in and outside India. The Assessee was registered in September 2001 under the Software Technology Park Scheme of India (STPI). During the AY ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the Assessee appealed to the ITAT. Upon dismissal of the Assessee's appeal by the ITAT by the impugned order, the present appeal has been filed. 7. Mr. G.C. Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant Assessee, submits that as far as Question No.1 is concerned, it stands covered in favour of the Assessee by the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Tei Technologies Pvt. Ltd. 2014 (361) ITR 36 (Del). He accordingly submits that as far as Question No.2 is concerned it after the income under Section 10A of the Act, which is completely exempt, is taken out from the total income that the brought forward losses have to be set off against the remaining business income of the Assessee. 8. Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taxation and is not subjected to the computation provision of the Act do not get attracted at all to the exempted income." The Court notices that the decision in Tei Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has also considered the decision of the Karnataka High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Himatsingke Seide Ltd.(supra) and has rightly distinguished it. The interpretation of Section 10A of the Act cannot change only because there is only one unit of Assessee. 11. This Court accordingly answers Question No.1 in the negative i.e. in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue by holding that the ITAT was in error in considering Section 10A of the Act to be a deduction provision. 12. In view of answer to Question No.1, Question No.2 is al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
