TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 45X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issioner cannot be upheld. - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA No.1148/PUN/2012, SA.No.16/PUN/2013, SA.No.30/PUN/2013 - - - Dated:- 24-3-2017 - MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM For The Appellant : Shri Vishal Kalra For The Respondent : Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of CIT-V, Pune, dated 26.03.2012 relating to assessment year 2006-07 passed under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act ). 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1) The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax V, Akurdi, Pune ( Ld. CIT ) erred in assuming jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act which is uncalled for and unjustified. The Ld. CIT has exercised this jurisdiction without recording an objective and conclusive finding that the order of the AO passed under section 143(3) of the Act is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. 2) The Ld. CIT failed to appreciate that section 263 of the Act cannot be invoked for launching roving enquiries. The Ld. CIT invoked section 10A(7) of the Act read with section 80IA(10) of the Act on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the assessee that total turnover for engineering design and development services was ₹ 60,67,11,083/- and the cost for the same was shown at ₹ 16,39,59,079/- which gives a profit of ₹ 44,27,52,004/-. The operating margin on sales works out to 72.98% and the operating margin on total cost works out to 270%. In the Business Support Services, the operating margin on total cost is shown at measly 7.39%. The Commissioner was of the view that where the assessee had claimed deduction under section 10A of the Act in respect of the activity relating to rendering of Engineering Design and Development Services to its Associated Enterprises, where the profit before taxation to total sales and profit before taxation to total cost was significantly high, then the provisions of section 80IA(8) and 80IA(10) of the Act, in so far as may, apply in relation to the undertaking referred to in section 10A, as they apply for the purposes of undertaking referred to in section 80IA. The Commissioner was of the view that since the assessee had shown disproportionately high profit margin on Engineering Design and Development Services as compared to the Business Support Services, the ded ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the complexity of the services provided and where the Engineering centres hourly rates being charged to Eaton Corporation have been accepted as being at Arms Length and where there has been no transfer pricing or other adjustment in respect of the payment made by the Engineering Centre to the Associated Enterprises for inputs/input services, then the profits earned by the Engineering Centre on the basis of such hourly rates cannot be regarded as more than ordinary profits in the context of section 80IA(10) of the Act and the said section could not be invoked to recompute the profits of Engineering Centre to limit the quantum of tax holiday under section 10A of the Act. The next contention of the assessee was that there was no arrangement to manipulate the profits of the Engineering Centre. 7. The Commissioner on the analysis of the provisions of section 263 of the Act observed that the fundamental principles for invoking the said jurisdiction were as under : (i) The CIT must record satisfaction that the order of the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Both the conditions must be fulfilled. (ii) Sec.263 cannot be invoked to correct each and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have been derived therefrom. 9. The Commissioner noted that transfer pricing provisions were applicable in the case of assessee to benchmark the international transaction undertaken by the assessee. It was further noted that assessee had selected CUP as the most appropriate method for Engineering Design and Development Services while for Business Support Services TNMM was selected as most appropriate method. It was further noted that the operating profit margin on total cost worked out to 270% in Engineering Design and Development Services while for Business Support Services, the operating profit margin on total cost was shown at 7.39%. Invoking the provisions of section 10A(7) r.w.s.80IA(10) of the Act, the Commissioner was of the view that in order to satisfy the provisions of law and to arrive at the reasonable amount of profit, it may have been deemed to be derived by the eligible business being Engineering Design and Development Services, then the same had to be benchmarked against the profitability of Business Support Services. It was further observed that notwithstanding the contention of the assessee that the two services provided were different and not comparable, even ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... profit of Business Support Services, being not permissible and hence provisions of section 10A(7) of the Act per se not applicable. The Commissioner observed that the Assessing Officer was being directed to apply his mind with respect to application of provisions of section 10A(7) r.w.s. 80IA(10) after giving opportunity of hearing to the assessee and hence issue could be taken up before the Assessing Officer during the denovo assessment proceedings. The Commissioner also brushed aside the submission of the assessee that there is no erosion of Indian tax base. The Commissioner concluded by holding that the assessment order was directed to be modified for non application of mind by the Assessing Officer on the issue and Assessing Officer was directed to apply the provisions of section 10A(7) r.w.s. 80IA(10) of the Act with respect to the operating profit margin to cost, shown by the Engineering Design and Development Services at 270%, vis- -vis the operating profit margin to cost shown by the Business Support Services at 7.39% or any other suitable benchmark found after fresh search; in case the Business Support Services were found to be not comparable to the Engineering Design and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wn to the order of TPO wherein adjustment has been made under the BSS segment. The TPO at page 15 had observed that BSS segment was functionally different division but risk assumed was similar as to the Engineering Design Services. Our attention was drawn to para 8.2 of the TPO s order wherein though the TPO mentions that the operating profit over total cost in respect of Engineering Design Services was 270% but the TPO applied the CUP method and accepted the margins shown by the assessee and no addition was made in the Engineering Design Services. It was further pointed out by the Ld. Authorised Representative for the assessee that the net profit earned in the Engineering Design Services was 72.98% and the results of OP/OC at 270% was only for the information of the TPO which has not been applied anywhere. In respect of the BSS segment he pointed out that the TPO applied TNM method, picked up external comparables and the PLI was reworked for the BSS segment, wherein the risk was similar, but it was being compensated by the Associated Enterprises at 7.39%. He further pointed out that at page 39 of the TPOs order a concern having OP/OC of 151.71% was dropped because of the turnover. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quired deduction under section 10A may be restricted; where the matter has been sent back with no conclusion for denovo assessment, the order passed by the Commissioner was held to be invalid. 13. Another conclusion of the Commissioner for exercising the jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act was that the Assessing Officer/TPO had not looked into the CUP method. Our attention was drawn to the order sheet entries wherein the Assessing Officer/TPO had raised the queries against which the assessee furnished the submissions in respect of the segmental details, increase in expenses and eligibility of claim of deduction under section 10A of the Act which are placed at pages 43 to 52 of the paper book. The Ld. Authorised Representative for the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions in respect of the exercise of jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act : 1. M/s. Semco Electric Private Limited Vs. ACIT in ITA No.792/PN/2012 order dated 14-10-2012. 2. Spicer India Limited Vs. CIT and vice versa in ITA Nos.1112, 1113 and 1280/PN/2012 order dated 08-07-2015. 14. The Ld. Authorised Representative for the assessee further pointed out that where the two division ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. The issue which arises in the present appeal is against the jurisdiction exercised by the Commissioner under section 263 of the Act wherein he has observed that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer was without application of mind on the issue of grant of deduction under section 10A of the Act. After considering the various aspects of the provisions of section 263 of the Act under the said section the Commissioner directed the Assessing Officer to apply the provisions of section 10A(7) r.w.s. 80IA(8) and 80IA(10) of the Act with respect to the operating profit margin shown by the assessee in the Engineering Design Services and consequently the deduction under section 10A of the Act was to be restricted, if required. 18. The assessee was providing Engineering Design Services to its Associated Enterprises in the STPI unit and the total turnover for the said unit was ₹ 60.67 crores and the assessee had shown the profit of ₹ 44.27 crores in the said unit. The operating profit margin on sales worked to 72.98% and the operating profit margin on total cost worked to 270%. The assessee while benchm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terprises was accepted to be at Arm s Length price by the TPO and no adjustment was made. The TPO has also not given any finding that the profit markup on cost, reported by the assessee, in its transaction with its Associated Enterprises was in excess of the profit markup of external comparables. On the other hand the TPO had applied CUP method in benchmarking the transaction in the Engineering division and had accepted the results shown by the assessee. In the absence of any adjustment having been made by the TPO, the Assessing Officer had to accept the order of the TPO as mandated by the provisions of section 92CA(4) of the Act. The Assessing Officer in consequent determined the income of the assessee in confirmity with the order of the TPO. 19. The issue which arises before us in the present appeal is that in such circumstances where the assessee had claimed the deduction under section 10A of the Act on such exports to its Associated Enterprises, can the same be curtailed by invoking the provisions of section 10A(7) r.w.s. 80IA(10) of the Act on the premise that the assessee had earned higher profits than normal on exports made to its Associated Enterprises. 20. In the fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the undertaking referred to in section 80-IA. 8. Further, sub-sections (8) and (10) of section 80-IA of the Act referred to in section 10A(7) read as under :- (8) Where any goods [or services] held for the purposes of the eligible business are transferred to any other business carried on by the assessee, or where any goods [or services] held for the purposes of any other business carried on by the assessee are transferred to the eligible business and, in either case, the consideration, if any, for such transfer as recorded in the accounts of the eligible business does not correspond to the market value of such goods [or services] as on the date of the transfer, then, for the purposes of the deduction under this section, the profits and gains of such eligible business shall be computed as if the transfer, in either case, had been made at the market value of such goods [or services] as on that date : Provided that where, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, the computation of the profits and gains of the eligible business in the manner hereinbefore specified presents exceptional difficulties, the Assessing Officer may compute such profits and gains on s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntained in sub-section (10) of section 80-IA of the Act itself. The circumstances in which such a course is available to the Assessing Officer is contained in section 80-IA(10) itself. A perusal of section 10A(7) r.w.s. 80-IA(10) of the Act would show that the two essential conditions are to be established before the Assessing Officer can proceed to disregard the profits declared by the assessee and determine the amount of profits which may reasonably deemed to have been derived from such business. Notably, such conditions are (i) existence of a close connection between the assessee carrying on eligible business and any other person; and, (ii) that the course of business is so arranged that the business transacted produces to the assessee more than the ordinary profits. 11. At the outset, it is to be noted that the opening sentence in section 80- IA(10) of the Act contains the expression where it appears to the Assessing Officer that . This would show that the onus is on the Assessing Officer to justify invoking of section 10A(7) r.w.s. 80-IA(10) of the Act, having regard to the facts circumstances of a given case. Evidently, the primary rule of evidence is that what ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt in the case of CIT vs. M/s Schmetz India Pvt. Ltd. vide Income Tax Appeal No.4508 of 2010 dated 04.09.2012, which is also to the similar effect. In the case before the Hon ble Bombay High Court assessee was a wholly owned subsidiary of a German Company. It had two divisions one at Kandla in the Kandla Free Trade Zone, engaged in the manufacture and export of industrial sewing machine needless; and other at Mumbai, engaged in trading in industrial sewing machine needless. The manufacturing division at Kandla exported its entire production of industrial machine needless to its holding company in Germany. For the assessment year 2004-05 assessee declared an income of ₹ 20.54 crores from its manufacturing division at Kandla and claimed 100% deduction u/s 10A of the Act. During the course of the assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer was of the view that abnormal profits had been declared in respect of the Kandla division, only in view of the income therefrom being exempt u/s 10A of the Act, and that the trading division at Mumbai showed a loss of ₹ 70.29 lacs. The Assessing Officer invoked the provisions of section 10A(7) r.w.s. 80-IA(10) of the Act to hold that pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t showing operating margins to total cost earned by the assessee from the STPI Units relatable to the software engineering services segment was furnished to show that even after the expiry of the tax holiday period the profits of the Units is higher than the other Units of the assessee. 14. In this context, a reference has also been made to the commercial reasons explained before the Assessing Officer for the high profits earned by the assessee s STPI Unit. From the submissions furnished to the Assessing Officer, which have been reproduced in para 2.6 of the assessment order, it is revealed that reasons were advanced to justify the higher margins of the STPI Units. Firstly, it was contended that there was substantial cost savings in terms of costs on sales, marketing, sale promotion and advertisement because majority of the business in the engineering services segment was with affiliates only. Secondly, it was pointed out that assessee is in the business of IT enabled services rendering engineering consultancy services in execution of industrial automation and building automation and control projects and it does not incur much product development costs or investments which ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lt in a loss for Honeywell group on an overall basis to the extent of public shareholding in the assessee company. It was, therefore, contended that in such a scenario, it could not be said that there was any arrangement between the assessee and the overseas Honeywell entities to produce higher profits to the assessee. In support of such proposition, reliance has been placed on the decisions of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ITO vs. Zydus Nycomed Healthcare (ITA Nos.4013/Mum/208, 4206/Mum/2009 and 4343/Mum/2009 dated 31.10.2013). 16. Apart from the aforesaid, it has been vehemently argued that ordinary profits for the purposes of section 10A(7) r.w.s. 80-IA(10) of the Act cannot be computed relying upon the Transfer Pricing documents prepared by the assessee. The Ld. Representative pointed out that having regard to the intention of the Transfer Pricing Provisions, the margins determined under the TNM Method are to be taken as indicative of the least profits that must be retained in India and it cannot be used to benchmark the ordinary profits as referred to in section 10A(7) r.w.s. 80-IA(10) of the Act. The sum and substance of the plea setup by the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ia Ltd. vs. Ahmedabad Manufacturing Calico, (1972) 42 CompCas 211 (BomXDPB-p-42), wherein it has been held as under :- The word arrange has, as one of its meaning, in the Shorter Oxford Dictionary, edition, to come to an agreement or understanding , and the word arrangement has, as its primary meaning, the action of arranging . As a matter of plain language it would, therefore, follow that the term arrangement means any agreement or understanding between the parties concerned. 19. As per the Ld. CIT-DR, since there is an agreement between the assessee and the associated enterprises for Provision of IT enabled engineering/software services, it is to be understood as an arrangement within the meaning of section 80-IA(10) of the Act. According to him, the requirements of section 80-IA(10) of the Act are satisfied if there exists an arrangement which leads to production of more than ordinary profits. Therefore, according to him, in the present case, the Assessing Officer is justified to invoke section 10A(7) r.w.s. 80-IA(10) of the Act inasmuch as the profit margin of the assessee s STPI Units is 80.06% as against 17.06% of the comparable selected by the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncurred by the other parties then the cost of such expenditure would certainly be reduced from the price charged by the assessee for the services rendered. In any case, it is pointed out that reimbursement of expenses is a profit neutral transaction and does not impact the profitability of the assessee. 22. Before we proceed further, it would be appropriate to examine the scope and intent of the provisions of section 10A(7) r.w.s. 80-IA(10) of the Act. In this context, a reference has been made to the CBDT Circular No.308 dated 29.06.2008 wherein the reasons for introduction of sub-section (7) to section 10A of the Act has been explained. In-particular, reference has been made to the following contents of the Circular :- The provisions of sub-section (8) and sub-section (9) of section 80-I will also apply in relation to the industrial undertaking referred to in the new section 10A as they apply in relation to an industrial undertaking referred to under section 80-I. Under the applied sub-section (8) of section 80-I, it is provided that where an Assessee has several units, some in the free trade zone and some outside, the profits of the unit in the free trade zone ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hould not be any abuse of tax concession by manipulation of profits. Therefore, section 10A(7) r.w.s. 80-IA(10) of the Act can be invoked only where it is shown that the course of business is so arranged which reflects an abuse of tax concession whereby the business transacted between two entities is so arranged, which produces to the assessee more than the ordinary profits which might be expected to arise in such eligible business. The emphasis is to eschew those more than the ordinary profits which are as a result of a business between two closely connected concerns having been arranged with the intent of abuse of the tax concession. Ostensibly, in the present case, the Revenue would have to justify that the course of business between assessee and the associated enterprises has been so arranged which produces to the assessee more than the ordinary profits which might be expected to arise in such eligible business with the intention of abusing the tax concession granted in section 10A of the Act. The mere existence of (i) a close connection between the assessee and the other person; and, (ii) more than ordinary profits is not sufficient to justify invoking of section 80-IA(10) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 80- IA(10) of the Act is not to be understood in its plain language but the same has to be understood in the context in which it is placed in the section. Notably, section 80-IA(10) of the Act restricts the plain meaning of the term arranged because it is placed between the words ..the course of business between them is so arranged that the business transacted between them produces to the assessee more than the ordinary profits which might be expected to arise in such eligible business . Therefore, it would necessarily mean that the arrangement referred to is an arrangement of the course of business which produces to the assessee more than the ordinary profits with the intent of abusing the tax concession. Thus, the word arranged in the section does not envisage a simple arrangement, but a arrangement of the course of business transacted which produces to the assessee more than ordinary profits which might be expected to arise in such a business with the intent of abusing the tax concessions. Therefore, the meaning of the words so arranged have to be understood in the context in which they are placed in section 80-IA(10) of the Act. A mere agreement between the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , existence of mere close connection and more than the ordinary profits would suffice. In other words, as per the Revenue, the existence of close connection and high profits would lead to a presumption that there is an arrangement within the meaning of section 80-IA(10) of the Act. The aforesaid plea, in our view, not only belies the language of section 80-IA(10) but also the legislative intent which seeks to curtail the abuse of tax concession by manipulation of profits between associated concerns. Therefore, an arrangement which is referred to in section 10A(7) r.w.s. 80-IA(10) of the Act has to be one which is prefaced by an intention to abuse the tax concessions, as per the intendment of the legislature. Therefore, existence of a mere agreement to do business is not enough to fulfill the requirement of section 10A(7) r.w.s. 80-IA(10) of the Act in the context of the words the course of business between them is so arranged . 28. At this stage, we may also address the argument of the Ld. CIT-DR that the burden cast on the Assessing Officer in section 10A(7) r.w.s. 80-IA(10) of the Act is much lighter and even a prima-facie satisfaction of an existence of tax avoidance is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on between an orange and an apple. It is known fact that profitability of software units is always higher than hardware unit. The test whether the appellant has earned more than ordinary profits, in this case, the answer is obvious NO, even as found by the AO. When the profits earned are reasonable and not excessive, there is no reason to sustain the addition Further there is no evidence of existence of any arrangement as contemplated under s. 80- 1(9). 29. Quite clearly, as per the Tribunal the question is not whether the onus is light or heavy but whether the Assessing Officer has discussed objectively the conditions mentioned in the section to disturb the results declared by the appellant. 22. The other aspect noted by the Tribunal was the arrangement between the parties for earning more than ordinary profits wherein onus was upon the Department to prove that an arrangement existed. The findings of the Tribunal are as under :- 30. Now, the case of the Assessing Officer is that the profits derived by the assessee from the eligible business are more than the ordinary profits and therefore he is empowered to arrive at what could be a reasonable profit from such el ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on is relevant :- We heard both sides in detail and considered the issue. As far as the present case is concerned, the Transfer Pricing Officer has made a categorical finding that the operating profit reported by the assessee is higher than the profit worked out on the basis of arm's length price. The Transfer Pricing Officer, therefore, concluded that no transfer pricing adjustment is called for in the present case. The Assessing Officer has made the reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer under section 92CA. The reference is made for the purpose of computing income arising from an international transaction with regard to the arm's length price as provided in section 92. Therefore, it is to be seen that the scope and extent of reference made by the Assessing Officer to the Transfer Pricing Officer is confined to the singular purpose stated in section 92. Sections 92A, 92B, 92C, 92CB, 92D, 92E and section 92F are all precisely defining and facilitating provisions ultimately for the purpose of computing the income as stated in section 92. All the above stated sections provided in Chapter X of the Income-tax Act, 1961 belong to a separate code as such, enacted for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held that the reduction of eligible profits of an assessee as done by the Assessing Officer by invoking the provisions of section 80-IA(10) read with section 10B(7), in the context of the Transfer Pricing Officer's order is unsustainable. The Tribunal has held that the Assessing Officer was not justified to invoke the provisions of section 80-IA(10) read with section 10B(7) so as to reduce the eligible profits on the basis of the arm's length price computed by the Transfer Pricing Officer without showing how he determined that the assessee had shown more than ordinary profits . As rightly argued by learned senior counsel the arm's length price is determined on the basis of the most appropriate method. The most appropriate method is chosen either on profit basis method or price basis method. In the latter ease, profits are not at all considered. In that method, profit is only a derivative of prices. When profits itself is not worked out, how is it justified to adopt the arm's length price profits to determine what is ordinary profits for the purpose of section 10A(7)? In the facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that the Assessing Officer has erred i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t any arrangement had been arrived between the parties which resulted in higher profits. Consequently, the re-working of the profits by Assessing Officer by invoking section 10A r.w.s. 80-IA(10) of the Act is not justified. The action of the Assessing Officer to restrict the deduction u/s 10A of the Act to ₹ 7,74,60,281/- as against the claim of ₹ 36,35,09,382/- is hereby set-aside. Thus, assessee succeeds on this aspect. 23. Now coming to the facts of the present case where the assessee had shown profits from its Engineering Design Development Services which was an STPI unit and had shown the net profit range of 72.98%, and the international transaction of the assessee with its Associated Enterprises had been accepted by the TPO in his report under section 92CA of the Act to be at Arm s Length and the Assessing Officer had adopted the said profit margins and after verification had allowed the claim of deduction under section 10A of the Act in respect of the activity of rendering Engineering Design Services. The question is whether deduction claimed under section 10A of the Act could be curtailed. The answer is No in view of the ratio laid down by the Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... down by the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in M/s. Semco Electric Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (supra). 25. Another aspect of the order of Commissioner is that it has not given any finding and has directed the Assessing Officer to apply the provisions of section 10A(7) r.w.s. 80IA(10) of the Act with respect to operating profit margin to cost, shown by the Engineering Design and Development Services at 270%, vis- -vis, operating profit margin to cost shown by Business Support Services at 7.39% or any other suitable benchmark found after fresh search, if the Business Support Services was found to be not comparable to the Engineering Design and Development Services, as vehemently argued by the assessee. The order of the Commissioner passed under section 263 of the Act in the above said circumstances lacks jurisdiction for not coming to a conclusion and directing the Assessing Officer to make enquiries and also carry out fresh search, if necessary. Under the garb of exercise of jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act the Commissioner cannot ask the Assessing Officer to make fishing and roving enquiries. In any case the basis for the exercise of jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act is the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n in the facts before the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal, the findings was that the Assessing Officer had not verified the claim of the assessee of deduction under section 80IB of the Act. It may also be pointed out herein that the Commissioner while passing the order under section 263 of the Act had set aside the assessment order that there was no application of mind by the Assessing Officer on the deduction claimed by the assessee. However, in the present case, the Assessing Officer in draft assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Act in paras 3 and 4 has referred to the claim of deduction under section 10A of the Act of STPI unit and has also referred to the Form No.56F furnished by the assessee along with return of income and the detailed working of computation of deduction under section 10A of the Act. The Assessing Officer thereafter notes that during the course of assessment, the assessee has also separately filed the segmental profit and loss account vide its submission dated 10-12-2009, showing the computation of income of STPI unit and the non-STPI unit. The Assessing Officer further observed that The claim of the assessee company under section 10A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
