2014 (8) TMI 1123 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - assessee claimed deduction u/s 10B instead of sec. 10A - AO without considering the facts granted exemption u/s 10B - technical mistake in claiming deduction u/s 10B - Held that - Though the assessee made the claim before the CIT that the assessee is entitled for deduction u/s 10A the claim of sec. 10A was not examined by the lower authorities and the CIT straight away directed the AO to withdraw the exemption made u/s 10B which is not proper. We are inclined to direct the AO to decide the issue afresh.

Summary

Issues:
Appeals by two different assessees against orders of CIT related to AY 2010-11; Claim of deduction under sec. 10B instead of sec. 10A; CIT directing AO to withdraw exemption u/s 10B; Assessee's contention of being entitled to exemption u/s 10A; Delhi High Court judgment on delegation of power; Hyderabad Tribunal's decision on examination of deduction u/s 10A; Claim of depreciation on software developed and purchased; ITAT Hyderabad Bench's orders on depreciation issues.

Analysis:
The ITAT Cochin heard two appeals by different assessees against CIT orders related to AY 2010-11, with common issues. In one appeal, the assessee claimed deduction u/s 10B instead of sec. 10A, leading to CIT directing AO to withdraw exemption u/s 10B. Assessee argued AO duly verified documents and was entitled to exemption u/s 10A as well, citing Delhi High Court judgment and circular of CBDT. Assessee also referenced a Punjab and Haryana High Court decision supporting deduction u/s 10B based on STPI registration. However, the DR argued against the assessee, citing the Delhi High Court judgment on delegation of power and specific procedures for benefits under sec. 10A and 10B. The ITAT found that the claim of sec. 10A was not examined by lower authorities, and directed AO to decide the issue afresh based on Hyderabad Tribunal's decision. The ITAT also addressed issues related to depreciation on software, following ITAT Hyderabad Bench's orders in favor of the assessee.

In conclusion, the ITAT allowed the appeals for statistical purposes, directing the AO to reexamine the deduction issue and following the Hyderabad Tribunal's decision. The judgment of the Delhi High Court cited by the DR was considered, but the ITAT's decision aligned with the assessee's arguments. The appeals were allowed based on the detailed analysis of the issues presented and the relevant legal precedents.