2017 (1) TMI 322 - AT - Income Tax

Entitlement to claim deduction u/s.10A on the profit of Unit B also - AO restricted the deduction u/s.10A on the ground that the so called Unit-B treated by the assessee is nothing but a mere expansion of Unit-A and therefore not eligible for deduction u/s.10A - Held that - Since the Hon ble High Court in assessee s own case has already upheld the finding given by the Tribunal that Unit-B is a separate and independent unit for the purpose of claiming deduction u/s.10A of the I.T. Act, therefore, in absence of any contrary material brought to our notice by the Ld. Departmental Representative against the decision of the Hon ble High Court in assessee s own case, we find no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) holding that assessee is entitled to claim deduction u/s.10A in respect of Unit-B. Deduction under section 80G - Held that - We restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to consider the claim of deduction u/s.80G of the Act after verifying the donation receipts along with approval u/s.80G(5)(vi) of the Act. The Assessing Officer shall decide the issue as per fact and law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Deduction under Section 10A for Unit-B.
2. Transfer Pricing adjustment.
3. Computation of interest under Section 234B.
4. Deduction under Section 80G.
5. Levy of interest under Sections 234B, 234C, and 234D.
6. Levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c).

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Deduction under Section 10A for Unit-B:
The primary issue is whether the assessee is entitled to claim deduction under Section 10A on the profit of Unit-B. The assessee, engaged in software development services, claimed this deduction, which the Assessing Officer (AO) restricted, arguing that Unit-B was merely an extension of Unit-A and not a separate entity. The CIT(A) allowed the deduction, treating Unit-B as an independent unit. The Tribunal upheld this decision, referencing a previous Tribunal and High Court ruling affirming Unit-B as a separate entity eligible for deduction under Section 10A. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal on this ground was dismissed.

2. Transfer Pricing Adjustment:
The appeals involved Transfer Pricing adjustments for multiple assessment years. The assessee requested to withdraw its cross-objection and appeals related to Transfer Pricing issues following a resolution reached under the Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP). The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal and dismissed the Revenue's appeals on Transfer Pricing issues, granting liberty to the Revenue to return to the Tribunal if aggrieved by the MAP resolution.

3. Computation of Interest under Section 234B:
The assessee challenged the computation of interest under Section 234B. Given the restoration of the Transfer Pricing adjustment issue to the AO in light of the MAP resolution, the Tribunal directed the AO to recompute the interest under Section 234B, which is mandatory and consequential.

4. Deduction under Section 80G:
The assessee contended that the AO disallowed a deduction under Section 80G without following the DRP's directions to verify the donation receipt and approval under Section 80G(5)(vi). The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO with instructions to verify the donation receipts and approval, and to decide the matter per law after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

5. Levy of Interest under Sections 234B, 234C, and 234D:
The Tribunal held that the levy of interest under Sections 234B, 234C, and 234D is mandatory and consequential, thus dismissing the assessee's ground on this issue.

6. Levy of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c):
The assessee's ground regarding the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was deemed premature and thus dismissed by the Tribunal.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals concerning the deduction under Section 10A and Transfer Pricing adjustments. The assessee's cross-objections and appeals on Transfer Pricing issues were withdrawn. The computation of interest under Section 234B was remanded to the AO for recalculation. The issue of deduction under Section 80G was also remanded to the AO for verification. The levy of interest under Sections 234B, 234C, and 234D was upheld as mandatory and consequential, and the ground on penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was dismissed as premature.