9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 300X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2-2016 - Shri Jason P. Boaz, Accountant Member And Shri Sandeep Gosain, Judicial Member For the Petitioner : Shri Sunil Hirawat For the Respondent : Shri Sumit Kumar ORDER Per Jason P. Boaz, A. M. These are cross appeals, by the assessee and Revenue directed against the order of the CIT(A)-9, Mumbai dated 12.12.2013 for A.Y. 2010-11. 2. The facts of the case, briefly are as under: - 2.1 The assessee, a company engaged in the business of manufacturing and export of diamond studded jewellery, filed its return for A.Y. 2010-11 on 26.09.2010 disclosing total income of ₹ 4,20,000/-. The case was subsequently taken up for scrutiny. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act ) vide order dated 22.01.2013, wherein the income of the assessee under the normal provisions was determined at ₹ 4,20,000/-, which, inter alia, included additions/disallowances of ₹ 57,563/- on account of internet on FD s and ₹ 13,39,825/- on account of EEFC income being excluded from computation of deduction under section 10A of the Act. While computing the book profits under section 115JAB of the Act, at S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry, omit, substitute or amend the above grounds of appeal, at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal, so as to enable the Hon. ITAT to decide this appeal according to law. 5. Ground No. 1: Interest on Fixed Deposits - ₹ 57,563/- 5.1 In this ground, the assessee contends that the learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the interest of ₹ 57,563/- received on Fixed Deposits was not be included as profits of the assessee s business while computing the eligible deduction under section 10A of the Act. At the outset the learned A.R. for the assessee submitted that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the assessee s own case for A.Y. 2009-10 in ITA No. 7371/Mum/2012 dated 15.07.2015. 5.2 We have heard both the learned A.R. for the assessee and the learned D.R. for Revenue in the matter. We find that this issue of whether interest received on fixed deposits is to be treated as part of the assessee s business income has been considered and held in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the assessee s own case for A.Y. 2009-10 in ITA No. 7371 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e heard both the learned A.R. for the assessee and the learned D.R. for Revenue in the matter. We find, as submitted by the learned A.R. for the assessee that similar issue was considered and held in favour of the assessee by the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in its order in ITA No. 7371/Mum/2012 dated 15.07.2015 in assessee s own case for A.Y. 2008- 09, holding as under at para 19 thereof: - 19. We have carefully perused the relevant part of the orders of the Revenue authorities. It is not in dispute that ₹ 35,86,248/- is not interest earned but gain on the fluctuation of foreign exchange. From the chart exhibited at page-24, we find that the assessee has suffered losses on foreign exchange fluctuation which have been accepted by the Revenue authorities. We, therefore, do not find any reason for giving differential treatment to the exchange gains. In our considered opinion, the exchange gains should be taxed under the head business income. We, accordingly direct the AO to tax the exchange gain under the head business income and accordingly allow deduction u/s. 10A of the Act, for the detailed reasons given while deciding ground No. 1 of this appeal, ground No. 3 is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal in the case of Genesys International Corporation Ltd. (55 SOT 10) held and directed the AO to exclude the exemption/deduction allowable under section 10A of the Act from the Book Profits taxable under section 115JB of the Act. At para 22 of the order the Coordinate Bench in assessee s own case for A.Y. 2009-10 (supra) held as under: - 22. After giving a thoughtful consideration to the facts in issue, we find force in the contention of the Ld Counsel. The Tribunal in the case of Genesys International Corpn (supra) at para-21 of its order has held as under: It is evident from above that an existing SEZ unit will also be governed by Special Economic Zones Act, 2005. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the benefits which are to be provided to the newly established unit in SEZ as per section 10AA of the Act will also be available to the existing units in SEZ. Moreover, section 4(1) of SEZ Act provides that an existing SEZ unit shall be deemed to have been notified and established in accordance with provisions of SEZ Act and the provisions of Special Economic Zones Act shall apply to such existing SEZ units. It is also observed that by the SEZ Act, sub-sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
