9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 152X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er section 154 and it was submitted by the ld. AR that no decision whatsoever passed by the Assessing Officer as on today. CIT did not dispute the same, but, however, prayed to give direction to the Assessing Officer to pass orders in this regard. Accordingly, ground No. 4 raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Short grant of TDS credit - HELD THAT:- DR prayed to give a direction to the Assessing Officer to give full TDS credit as was given in the original assessment proceedings order dated 20.03.2015. We order accordingly. Thus, the ground No. 5 raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Assessing Officer and no finding rendered to the issue relating to the disallowance of deposits and any other cost written off. 6. Aggrieved by said order in the 2nd round of litigation, the assessee is in appeal before us by raising grounds as forming part of Form 36. 7. Ground No. 1 is general in nature and requires no adjudication. 8. Ground No. 2 (2.1 to 2.4) raised challenging the order of the ld. CIT(A) in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer in excluding expenses incurred in foreign currency from export turnover for the purpose of computation of deduction under section 10AA of the Act. 9. Heard both the parties, perused the materials available on record. We note that in the first round of litigation, the Coordinate Bench of the ITAT, vide its order dated 24.01.2018, directed the Assessing Officer to verify the claim of the assessee in respect of four issues, which are reproduced by the Assessing Officer in the giving effect order dated 29.12.2018 is on record at page No. 35 to 39 of the appeal memo. On perusal of the same, we note that the Assessing Officer requested the assessee to file all the details in favour of its claim. The Assessing Officer observed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... td. [2003] 259 ITR 403 (Mad), which was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of India Comnet International Private Ltd. v. ITO [2012] 26 taxmann.com 349 (SC). The Hon'ble High Court while deciding the substantial question of law has held that the said decision in the case of CIT v. Menon Impex (P.) Ltd. (supra) is not applicable to the disputed issue in appeal and accordingly held that the order of the Tribunal in reversing the order of the DRP is not justified. 11. The substantial question of law as framed before the Hon'ble High Court in assessee's own case (supra) reads as under: This appeal filed by the assessee under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the 'Act' for brevity), is directed against the order dated 16.11.2016 in ITA.No.1009/Mds/2014 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'D' Bench, Chennai, for the assessment year 2009 - 10. 2. The appeal was admitted on 05.06.2018, on the following substantial questions of law. "1. Whether the Tribunal erred in holding that the expenditure incurred in foreign currency by the appellant was to be excluded from export turnover for the purpose of computing deduction under Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 144(c)(i), determining the assessed income at ₹. 20,68,24,860/-. The assessee, being aggrieved by the draft Assessment Order, filed an application before the Dispute Resolution Panel (hereinafter 'the DRP' for brevity). The DRP accepted the case of the assessee and issued directions dated 20.12.2013, directing the Assessing Officer not to exclude the said expenditures from the turnover of the assessee, holding that the said expenditures were not incurred for the purpose of rendering service outside India. The respondent Revenue filed an appeal before the Tribunal. Vide order dated 16.11.2016 in ITA No. 1009/Mds/2014, the Tribunal allowed Revenue's appeal and aggrieved by the same, the assessee is in appeal before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras under section 260A of the Act. 14. Careful reading of the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court, we find that the Hon'ble High Court was pleased to observe that the Tribunal did not assign any reason as to why the findings/directions issued by the DRP are not sustainable. Further, we note that the Hon'ble High court was pleased to observe that the Tribunal did not specifically adjudicate the contention of the Revenue that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . CIT(A) to adjudicate the said issue and rectify the appellate order. It was submitted that so far the ld. CIT(A) did not dispose off the same and the assessee is ready to prosecute the same in case the ld. CIT(A) affords an opportunity. We are of the view that since the application filed by the assessee is pending on the file of the ld. CIT(A) for adjudication, we deem it proper to give a direction to the ld. CIT(A) to dispose off the same by affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, ground No. 3 as well as addition ground raised vide application dated 22.02.2024 are disposed as above. 18. Ground No. 4 raised by the assessee challenging double addition of interest from fixed deposits in the computation of income. We find the computation from original assessment order dated 28.02.2014, which is at page 82 of the paper book, wherein, the interest on fixed deposits to an extent of ₹. 71,54,382/- was added by the Assessing Officer which is forming part of profits of business to an extent of ₹. 50,34,31,180/-. Whereas, on perusal of the computation of total income in giving effect proceedings in pursuance to the directions of the ITAT, which is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in computing deduction under section 10AA of the Act, without complying with the specific directions of the Tribunal, which held not to exclude the same from the profits of SEZ unit vide order dated 24.01.2018. We find the order of the Tribunal in assessee's own case in first round of litigation for the assessment year 2010-11 and 2011-12 in page 113 of the paper book, wherein, the Tribunal decided the issue of exclusion of provisions no longer required is written back and other income from computation of profits for the purpose of deduction under section 10AA of the Act, directed the Assessing Officer not to exclude other income of ₹. 32,35,845/- and others at ₹. 8,67,313/- vide para No. 6 of the said order. The ld. DR did not dispute the same. However, the Assessing Officer in giving effect proceedings, in pursuance of direction of the ITAT and excluded the same from the total turnover. 24. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an application under section 154 of the Act, which is at page 177 of the paper book, seeking to rectify the said mistake, which is apparent on record. The ld. AR submits that there was no order passed as on today though the application under section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
