2015 (12) TMI 1547

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... red in directing to allow exemption u/s. 10A of I.T. Act, 1961 without appreciating that neither A.O. nor CIT(A) has done any comparative study about the genuinenes s and reasonableness of expenses and profit earned. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that the assessee has declared very high and abnormal profit and claimed it as exempt u/s 10A, this aspects needs detailed investigation especially in view of the fact that USA f irm and the assessee has common direct control jointly by one individual and his relatives. 3. The appellant prays that the order of Ld.CIT(A) on the above ground be set aside and matter be restored to the Assessing Officer. 4. The appell .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... in the range of Rs. 11,000/- to Rs. 15,000/- in the city of Mumbai. The AO then concluded that no actual business was done and the entire set up was created to claim tax-free income in India and therefore proceeded to deny the exemption claimed by the assessee u/s 10A. Being aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee made a detailed submission in support of its claim and also furnished the additional evidences as mentioned in para 4.2 of the impugned order. The Ld. CIT(A) forwarded the said evidences to the AO for verification and comments. The AO thereafter conducted the investigation in respect of the evidences submitted by the assessee and came to the following conclusion: "The f .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... evidences that the business was actually carried out by the assessee and that there were 88 employees employed by the assessee and they were having the requisite expertise and qualification required for the work of the assessee and that the assessee had actually carried out the business during the relevant financial year. All the claims have been duly verified by the AO and in view of this, he deleted the addition. 4. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) arrived at after consideration of the relevant facts and the evidences submitted which is also based on the verifications conducted by the AO during the remand proceedings. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is therefore upheld. 5. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X