TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 794X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Counsel For the Respondent : Mr. M.P. Senthil Kumar JUDGMENT M. DURAISWAMY, J. Challenging the order passed in I.T.A.No.2124/Mds/2015 in respect of the Assessment Year 2006-2007 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, C Bench (for brevity, the Tribunal), the Revenue has filed the above appeal. 2. The above appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law: Whether om the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the expenditure in foreign exchange is to be excluded from both export turnover and total turnover while computing eligible deduction under section 10A of the Income Tax Act? 3. When the appeal is taken up for hearing, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ompany Circle I (3), 121, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai 600 034]. 5.It would be appropriate to extract the relevant portions of the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent. (i)[2018] 93 taxmann.com 33 (SC) [Commissioner of Income-tax, Central III Vs. HCL Technologies Ltd.] ... 19.In the instant case, if the deductions on freight, telecommunication and insurance attributable to the delivery of computer software under Section 10A of the IT Act are allowed only in Export Turnover but not from the Total Turnover then, it would give rise to inadvertent, unlawful, meaningless and illogical result which would cause grave injustice to the Respondent which could have never been the intention of the le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs, all the three Tax Appeals are taken up together and disposed of by this common judgment. For the Assessment Year 2000-01, the assessee had filed its return of income on 29.11.2000. The assessee claimed that it was eligible for deduction under Section 10B. The return was processed on 28.03.2002. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer had reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment on account of the assessee Company being ineligible for deduction under Section 10A. Subsequently, a notice dated 22.03.2007 was issued under Section 148 and after giving an opportunity of hearing, the scrutiny assessment order was passed on 17.12.2007, disallowing the entire claim of deduction under Section 10B. Further, the expenditure ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er, getting the approval from the authorities, the assessee become entitled to deduction under Section 10A. Merely because by shifting the business from one place to another and keeping some of the plant and machinery as those are bearing charge of financial institution, does not violate Clause (ii) and (iii) of Sub Clause (2) to Section 10A of the Income Tax Act. 7.The order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was challenged by the Department in T.C.A.No.1916 of 2008 and the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court by its judgment dated 26.10.2018 confirmed the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 16.05.2008 made in I.T.A.No.2255/Mds/06 for the Assessment Year 2002-03 and dismissed the appeal. In view of the judgmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der Chapter IV of the Act and not at the stage of computation of the total income under Chapter VI of the Act. 28.Here is the case in hand, the total income was first arrived at by the Revenue through the Assessing Officer in the Assessment order by computing the total income by way of brought forward or carry forward the depreciation allowance of the earlier Assessment years and set off the unabsorbed depreciation first and making the return Nil, thereby leaving the Assessee in a position where it could not claim an deduction under Section 10B as there was no income after set off of carry forward depreciation and unabsorbed depreciation from earlier years. 29.This method of computing the income in the present case made by the Revenue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
