TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1463X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... but deferred the payment by 12 years. The assessee, like in the case of Sulzer India Limited (2014 (12) TMI 267 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT), approached for a pre-deposit, which was permitted. In the circumstances, it was held that Section 41(1) of the Act does not apply. Deduction u/s 10A - exclusion of telecommunication charges from export turnover - Held that:- Explanation 2(iv) to Section 10A of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ITAT ), and urges two grounds; firstly, whether the remission of liability was correctly brought to tax under Section 41(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ), and secondly, whether the exemption ultimately upheld under Section 10A of the Act, was warranted having regard to Explanation 2 (iv) to Sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he CIT(A) applied the judgment of Bombay High Court passed in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sulzer India Limited, (2014) 369 ITR 717 (Bom) which had held that the disallowance of the kind made under Section 41(1) of the Act was not justified. On the other aspect, the CIT(A) was of the opinion that the Explanation 2(iv) to Section 10A of the Act did not apply. The ITAT confirmed th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e-deposit, which was permitted. In the circumstances, it was held that Section 41(1) of the Act does not apply. On an application of the principles approved in the case of M/s Balkrishna Industries (supra), the Court is of the opinion that no question of law arises. So far as the second question i.e. Explanation 2(iv) to Section 10A of the Act is concerned, this issue is covered by the decision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
