2015 (8) TMI 1428

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ld. AR that the Assessee is a domestic company doing business of data processing. It was the submission that the Assessee had filed its return claiming exemption u/s 10A of the Act. It was the submission that the AO had passed an order u/s 143(3) of the Act dt. 30.11.2012 accepting the Assessee's claim of exemption u/s 10A. It was the submission that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax had vide order dt. 27.3.2014 held the assessment order passed by the AO to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue insofar as the CBDT circular dt. 16.7.2013 had not been followed by the AO. It was the submission that the AO had in the course of the assessment questioned the Assessee's claim of exemption u/s 10A of the Act and in view .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of computer software for purposes of determination of the allowable deduction u/s 10B of the Act. The Revenue, therefore, filed appeal before the Hon'ble High Court and the High Court framed the following question for determination: "Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the deduction u/s 10A or 10B of the Act during the current assessment year has to be allowed without setting off brought forward unabsorbed losses and the depreciation from earlier assessment year or current assessment year either in the case of non-STP units or in the case of the very same undertaking?" The Hon'ble High court has considered the issue at length and at para 31 of its order has held that as deduction u/s 10A has to be excluded from the total in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Yokogawa India Ltd.(supra) holds the field. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vegetable Products Ltd., reported in 88 ITR 192 (SC) has held that where two reasonable constructions are possible, then the construction in favour of the assessee must be adopted. Respectfully following the said decision, we allow the ground of appeal No. 2." It was the submission that the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax passed u/s 263 of the Act was liable to be quashed. 3. In reply, the ld. DR vehemently supported the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. 4. We have considered the rival submissions. Admittedly the facts remain that the AO has passed the original assessmen .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X