9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 1046X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 59,81,81,987/- u/s 10AA of the Act in respect of three undertakings without appreciating the fact that the these units were formed by splitting up and reconstructing of the existing business as provided in section 10AA(4)(ii) of the I.T.Act, 1961. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in directing the Assessing Officer to delete the disallowance u/s 10AA(9) r.w.s. 80IA(10) of the I.T. Act, 1961 when in fact the assessee has earned substantial excessive profits as discussed by the A.O. in his Assessment Order. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing officer to delete the disallowance made u/s 14A r.w. Rule. 8D even though the assessee has earned substantial amount of tax free dividend and has disallowed meager amount u/s 14A on estim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... undertaking was established in assessment year 2011-12. The Tribunal while deciding the issue in the case of assessee in assessment year 2011-12 in ITA No.74/PUN/2016 and cross appeal in ITA No.299/PUN/2016, relating to assessment year 2011-12, order dated 18.03.2019 has allowed the plea of assessee and held that the said undertakings were not established by splitting up and / or re-constructing of existing business and had allowed the claim of assessee under section 10AA of the Act. 6. Now, coming to third undertaking i.e. new undertaking which was established in the current year at Magarpatta, Pune SEZ. The assessee has placed the list of employees who were transferred from old unit, at pages 27 to 29 of Paper Book. As per the said list, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isions of section 10AA(9) r.w.s. 80IA(10) of the Act were invoked. The Tribunal in earlier year have deleted the aforesaid disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. Following the same parity of reasoning, we hold that this issue also stands covered in favour of assessee in line with orders of earlier years and in the absence of Assessing Officer failing to demonstrate that any arrangement existed between the assessee and comparable companies selected which enabled the assessee to earn more profits. The ground of appeal No.2 raised by Revenue is thus, dismissed. 9. The next issue raised vide ground of appeal No.3 is against deletion of disallowance made under section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (in short ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aised vide ground of appeal No.5 in respect of disallowance under section 40(a)(i) of the Act in respect of foreign remittances made to software and other services where TDS was not deducted. 12. The Assessing Officer had made the aforesaid disallowance under section 40(a)(i) of the Act in respect of various payments made by the assessee i.e. in respect of purchase of software license and payment for license fees of Rs. 6.82 crores, AMC charges of Rs. 16,76,325/-, professional fees of Rs. 2,95,940/-, Accounting support fees outside India paid of Rs. 88,580/- and training fees of Rs. 4,76,567/-, totaling Rs. 7,07,54,906/-. The CIT(A) allowed the plea of assessee in turn, relying on the order of Tribunal for assessment years 2008-09 to 2010- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
