TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 1308X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUTANT MEMBER For The Revenue : Sh. Umesh Chand Dubey, Sr. DR For The Assessee : Sh. Tarandeep Singh, CA ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM These are the Cross Appeals by the Revenue as well as Assessee challenging the order dated 28/03/2012 by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XXI, New Delhi relating to assessment year 2007-08. Since the issued involved in these appeals are connected, hence, the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds:- 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reciation without going into the merits of the disallowance and holding that since the assessee is eligible for exemption u/s 10A, this addition is irrelevant. The appellant craves leave for reserving the right to amend, modify, alter, add or forego any ground(s) of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of appeal. 3. The Assessee has raised the following grounds:- The following grounds of appeal are independent of, and without prejudice to, one another: 1. On the facts, and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the action of the AO by disallowing the sales promotion, client petty expenses and client meeting expenses of ₹ 3,78,433/-, ₹ 9,56,100/- and S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act dated 18.11.2010 and during hearings. In response to the notices, the A.R. of the assessee attended the proceedings from time to time and filed the requisite details, documents and explanation. In the assessment order the Assessing Officer observed that the name of the assessee is M/s Trinity Business Process Management Pvt. Ltd. was held by M/s Trinity Partners Inc., USA, the shares of M/s WNS Mortgage Services Pvt. Ltd. are held by M/s WNS (Holdings) Ltd. as is mentioned in the tax audit report in Form 3CD. He further observed that the assessee has not been able to prove satisfactorily that there was actual manufacture of software or export thereof, since the alleged transactions are entirely with its parent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evenue and Assessee are in cross appeals before us. Ld. DR relied upon the order of the AO and stated that Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing the deduction when it was not established that the assessee company had developed or manufactured and exported any software at all. However, Ld. Counsel of the assessee stated that the issue in dispute is squarely covered by the ITAT, New Delhi decision dated 10.2.2017 in assessee s own case passed in ITA No. 236/Del/2011 (AY 2006-07) in Revenue s Appeal wherein the Tribunal has upheld the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in allowing the exemption u/s. 10A of the Act in the immediately preceding assessment year i.e. AY 2006-07. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the records especially the impugned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xiii. Revenue Accounting; xiv. Support Centres; and xv. Webs-site Services 7. In so far as the actual rendering of the service is concerned the Transfer Pricing Officer in his order dated 15/10/2009 in respect of the assessment year 2006-07 categorically recorded that the assessee has provided these services to the parent company. Further vide paragraph no. 5.8 the Ld. CIT (A) observed that the assessee drew his attention to the summary of invoices and copy of the SOFTEX forms submitted to the STPI Authorities along with a copy of invoices raised during FY 2005- 06 and these documents were also submitted during the course of assessment proceedings before the AO vide its submission dated December 29, 2009. In the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. Kiran Kapoor 372 ITR 321 (Del.). 9. In view of the above facts and law, we find that the material on record amply justifies the reasoning and conclusions reached by the Ld. CIT (A) and the findings of learned CIT(A) are unassailable and do not warrant any interference. We, therefore, uphold the same. 10. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 8. After perusing the Tribunal s finding in assessee s own case for the assessment year 2006-07, as aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion, that the issue in dispute is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision of the ITAT in assessee s own case, and therefore, respectfully following the precedent, as aforesaid, we fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
