9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 1150X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is Court vide order dated 15.07.2014 on the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal is right in law in excluding Celestial Labs Ltd., Infosys Technologies Ltd, KALS Information Systems Ltd., Tata Elxsi Ltd. Wipro Ltd and Lucid Software Ltd., by placing reliance on its own order in the case of Trilogy E3 Business Software India Ltd., order of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Telecordia technologies India P Ltd., and Bangalore Tribunal in the case of 24/7 customer Pvt. Ltd., without appreciating the functional similarity of the assessee company with the above comparables and without going into merits of each of the case? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumsta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t supports and supplement its holdings company's offerings in the account of aggregation industry. The assessee filed the return of income on 29.09.2008 for Assessment Year 2008-09, by which total income of Rs. 4,24,888/- was declared and deduction of Rs. 5,05,83,628/- under Section 10B of the Act and Rs. 3,05,84,109/- as book profits under Section 115JB of the Act was claimed. The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act and was subsequently taken up for scrutiny. As the International transactions of the assessee were in excess of Rs. 10 Crores, a reference under Section 92CA(1) of the Act was made to Transfer Pricing Officer on 14.05.2011 in respect of international transactions viz., Provision of Software Development Services ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anted the benefit of deduction under Section 10B of the Act. In the result, the appeal preferred by the assessee was partly allowed. Being aggrieved, the revenue is in appeal before us. 4. Learned counsel for the revenue at the outset fairly submitted that the substantial questions of law 3 and 4 have been decided against the revenue by a judgment of the Supreme Court in 'COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III VS. HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD.' 404 ITR 719. It is further submitted that the Tribunal should have adjudicated the case of the assessee independently and should have given findings instead of placing reliance on the decisions. In this connection, our attention has been invited to the order passed by the Tribunal. It is further pointed out that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
