TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 427X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee as held though Section 10A, as amended, is a provision for deduction, the stage of deduction would be while computing the gross total income of the eligible undertaking under Chapter IV of the Act and not at the stage of computation of the total income under Chapter VI. - Decided in favour of assessee Addition u/s 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) - assessee delayed the deposit of employee s contribution [ESIC] - Held that:- CIT(A) correctly deleted the same by observing that the said amounts were deposited before due date of filing of return of income and therefore, allowable to assessee in terms of judgment of Hon ble Bombay High Court rendered in CIT Vs. Hindustan Organics Chemicals Limited [2014 (7) TMI 477 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er the said sections. iii) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the ratio of the judgment of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Liberty India Ltd. Vs. CIT (317 ITR 218) wherein it is held that though certain income may constitute profit from business u/s.28, yet the same cannot be construed as profits derived from an industrial undertaking and hence would not be eligible for deduction u/s 10A/10AA of the Act. iv) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in allowing interest income earned from EEFC account as profits eligible for deduction u/s 10A 10AA of the Act relying upon the decision of ITAT in assessee s own case without app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amed by Ld. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-11(2)(2), Mumbai u/s 143(3) on 26/02/2015 wherein the income of the assessee has been determined at ₹ 24.16 crores under normal provisions after certain adjustments as against returned income of ₹ 23.67 crores e-filed by the assessee on 29/11/2011. During impugned AY, the assessee being resident corporate assessee was engaged in the providing information technology enabled services [ITES] business process outsourcing services . The material on record reveal that the assessee was eligible to claim deduction u/s 10A/10AA. 2.1 During assessment proceedings, it was noted that the assessee credited interest income of ₹ 22.31 crores which was credited to Profit Loss Accou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ered in assessee s own case for AYs 2008- 09 to 2010-11. The higher deduction u/s 10A / 10AA was allowed by placing reliance on the decision of Hon ble Bombay High Court rendered in assessee s sister concern case titled as CIT Vs. Syntel Ltd. for AY 2005-06. Aggrieved, the revenue is in further appeal before us. 4. The Ld. Departmental Representative [DR], supported the stand taken by Ld. AO but could not substantiate the same with any contrary judgment to controvert the stand of the assessee. Per Contra, the Ld. Authorized Representative for Assessee [AR], Ms. Meera Patil, submitted that the issues were squarely covered in assessee s favor by earlier judicial pronouncements. 5. We have carefully heard the rival contentions and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tter has been concluded by Hon ble court as follows:- 17. If the specific provisions of the Act provide [first proviso to Sections 10A(1); 10A (1A) and 10A (4)] that the unit that is contemplated for grant of benefit of deduction is the eligible undertaking and that is also how the contemporaneous Circular of the department (No. 794 dated 09.08.2000) understood the situation, it is only logical and natural that the stage of deduction of the profits and gains of the business of an eligible undertaking has to be made independently and, therefore, immediately after the stage of determination of its profits and gains. At that stage the aggregate of the incomes under other heads and the provisions for set off and carry forward contained ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0A / 10AA against interest income of ₹ 13.66 crores have been denied to the assessee but allowed by Ld. CIT(A) on similar reasoning. The revenue is in appeal against the same with similar grounds of appeal. There being no change in facts or circumstances, we confirm the stand of Ld. CIT(A) and dismiss Ground Numbers 1 to 5 as raised before us. 9. An another issue which has cropped up in this year pertains to an addition of ₹ 19.66 Lacs u/s 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) During assessment proceedings, it was noted that the assessee delayed the deposit of employee s contribution [ESIC] for ₹ 19.66 Lacs which resulted into impugned addition within the meaning of Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x). The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
