Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2013 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (2) TMI 261 - ITAT NEW DELHIRelief u/s 10A - disallowance as per clause 4 of the permission letter issued by STPI assessee would intimate the STPI in respect of the commencement of commercial production - conditions of Section 10A(2)(ii) & (iii) not been compiled - Held that:- As per the application dated 10.04.2006, filed by the assessee with STPI for registration as STP unit conversion from DTA to STP unit. Thus, the fact remains, the assessee company was converted to STP unit and, therefore, there was no restructuring and or transferring of the business as such. The conditions as mentioned in section 10A(2)(ii) & (iii) are not violated as there is neither splitting up or the re-construction of the business already in existence because conversion and splitting up or the re-construction are completely different terms. Moreover, conversion cannot be termed as transfer. The circular No.1/2005 dated 06.01.2005 stating that an undertaking set up in domestic tariff area which is subsequently approved as 100% EOU is eligible for deduction u/s 10A as relied by the assessee would be applicable on the present case also. The finding of the authorities that the intimation with regard to commercial production was not given, therefore, the permission as given STPI became non-existent is not acceptable as there is nothing on record suggesting that permission granted was subsequently, cancelled or withdrawn on the basis that the assessee could not give intimation to STPI in respect of the beginning of commercial production. Moreover, in the subsequent year, STPI itself had intimated to the AO that condition of intimation is immaterial. Thus the assessee is entitled for exemption u/s 10A - in favour of assessee. Depreciation on computers - disallowance as no genuine purchases - Held that:- From the records, it is transpired that the AO has not made inquiry from the office of the assessee about the installation of computers etc. But fact remains that assessee did not controvert the report of Inspector by seeking cross-examination at any stage. AO has also not given any finding in respect of the evidence, i.e payment by cheque, how they are not credible. Such payments could not have been made in vaccum, money have traveled to some destination. AO did not feel it proper to find out the ultimate destination of money paid by the assessee company claimed to have been paid as price of computers. Therefore this issue is remitted back to the file of AO, to decide afresh - in favour of assessee for statistical purposes. Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) - purchase/hiring of software - Held that:- It is not disputed that the payments were made during the year and no amount was payable at the end of the financial year, thus relying on Merilyn Shipping & Transports, Visakhapatnam vs. ACIT [2012 (4) TMI 290 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM] wherein held that only the outstanding amount or the provision for expense liable for TDS is sought to be disallowed in the event there is a default of TDS thus AO is directed to delete the addition made - in favour of assessee.
|