9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 1844X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds raised by assessee and argument made by Ld. DR on this context becomes academic exercise. Hence, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng our attention to the grounds raised in appeal, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the core issue for adjudication relates to the allowability of deduction u/s.10A of the Act with respect to profit earned by the assessee-company. The assessee is duly registered with STPI as per requirement of the scheme of the year 2010-11 and the claim of deduction u/s. 10A of the Act has been allowed after due verification for the past 10 assessment years. But in the assessment year under appeal i.e. 2010-11, the claim of deduction was disallowed by Assessing Officer despite the similarity of facts over all these years. Ld. Counsel for the assessee relied heavily on the decision of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Paul Brothers reported as 216 ITR 548 as well as decision of Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Ygyan Consulting Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, in ITA No.65/PUN/2015 decided on 13.10.2017. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee filed written submissions narrating all the facts. For the sake of completeness, said notings is extracted as under: "1] The assessee is in the business of developing and exporting the computer software and the name of his prop. concer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ote about the main software produced i.e. Whizpay. Now, this software also varies from customer to customer and hence, the assessee has to make such software for every customer separately. Accordingly, the statement of work is also entered into for the software supplied separately. The contention of the CIT(A) that it is a common software is not correct and Without Prejudice, on page 98 the assessee has given a Board Circular which even considers remote maintenance as eligible for deduction u/s. 10A. If software maintenance could qualify for deduction u/s.10A, the appellant submits that software manufactured by him definitely qualifies for the deduction. Thus, on this account also, it cannot be held that the assessee does not produce software in India. 6] The A.O. and the CIT(A) have not proved that the assessee has not produced the software in India. In fact, the above evidences clearly indicate that the assessee has produced software in India and exported the same. On page 124, the assessee has given the chart for various years and it is to be stated that the deduction u/s 10A is allowed for all the 10 years except this year. For two years i.e. A.Ys. 2003-04 and 2008-09, in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... harges at ₹ 3.47 Lakhs (rounded off). He also noted about payment of ₹ 2.5 Lakhs towards Software Technical services fees. When all these transactions are undisputed, the allegation of Assessing Officer that the assessee has not produced goods in India for earning reasonable profits, is not sustainable in law. Further, he mentioned that when exemption u/s. 10A in the previous ten years have been allowed by Assessing Officer is not justified in denying the benefit for the first time in the assessment year under appeal. Further, the Ld. Counsel of assessee brought our attention to Para 6 of the order of Tribunal in the case of M/s. Ygyan Consulting Pvt. Ltd. (supra.) to make out a case against the order of the Assessing Officer. 8. On hearing both the sides on the legal aspects on the issue of claim of exemption u/s.10A of the Act for the assessment year 2010-11, we find the decision of Assessing Officer is unsustainable in view of the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Paul Brothers (supra.) as well as the order of Tribunal in the case M/s.Ygyan Consulting Pvt. Ltd. (supra). Relevant portion of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
