Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2011 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (3) TMI 1240 - ITAT MUMBAIDeduction u/s.80RRA - deduction denied by the AO because assessee had not fulfilled the condition as per section 80 RRA(2)(ii) - assessee had also claimed alternate deduction u/s.80-O set aside by the Tribunal – Held that:- If the approvals of the technical services have not been granted, obviously then assessee is not entitled for deduction u/s.80RRA. The Tribunal cannot go beyond its scope to hold that CBDT was not correct in refusing the permission for which assessee could have taken appropriate steps before the Hon’ble High Court. In the light of this discussion assessee is not entitle for deduction u/s.80 RRA. Against assessee. As Deduction u/s. 80O is only in respect of royalty and such royalties are receivable in respect of patent, invention, design or registered trademark, tax incentive u/s. 80-0 is contemplated to encourage the export of Indian know-how and skills abroad. This incentive was to encourage them to exploit their patent rights, trademark and technical know-how abroad. It is not meant merely to sell their technique as technical know-how, which is the case for availing deduction u/s.8ORRA. In other words, deduction u/s.80-0 is available for export of much higher skills which can quality as a design or even better an invention, or they should be capable of being patented or registered as trade-marks. It is not available for ordinary export of skills - assessee has not supplied any design or not used any intellectual property. The learned counsel had emphasised that assessee had provided technical know-how but there is nothing on record to show that assessee was in possession of any technical know-how, assessee was merely providing technical services or some kind of software for which deduction is not available u/s.80-O. Therefore, in case of Ontrack Systems Ltd. (2006 (10) TMI 206 - ITAT MADRAS-B) also, the fact was that assessee had provided services of designing the website that is why deduction was held to be allowable, assessee is not entitle for deduction u/s.80-O. Against assessee.
|