9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 1333X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rvice to its group companies. Assessee is a captive service provider assisting SAP AG, Germany in research, design and development of new software products, software enhancement and modifying existing software modules. It operates from various units registered with Software Technology Parks (STP) of India. Assessee had international transactions in the nature of software development services rendered to its AE abroad, and receipts from such software development related services came to Rs. 5,20,17,36,977/-. Operating margin worked out by assessee for the software development services segment was 8.48% as under : 04. For bench marking the value of its international transactions assessee had in its TP study considered TNM as most appropriate method and for this purpose selected 18 comparables. Comparables selected by assessee and their margin were as under : 05. As per the assessee, its margin compared favourably with the arithmetic mean of the PLI of the comparables mentioned above and therefore there was no requirement of any adjustment on account of ALP. 06. When the matter was referred by AO to the TPO, TPO was of the opinion that selection of comparables made by assessee were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. AR submitted that M/s. Megasoft Ltd, one among the comparables was remitted back by the Tribunal in the very same case for consideration of segmental results, based on its Blue Ally segment. Ld. AR also submitted that an additional ground has been filed for exclusion of Accel Transmatic Ltd (seg), E-Zest Solutions Ltd, Helios & Matheson Information Technology Ltd, Persistent Systems Ltd, and Thirdware Solutions Ltd, since assessee had not challenged the appropriateness of the above comparables before the lower authorities. For admission of the additional ground, Ld. AR relied on the decision of Special Bench of this Tribunal in the case of DCIT v. Quark Systems Pvt. Ltd. [42 DTR 414]. Ld. AR also pointed out that very same set of comparables were also considered by the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Hewlett- Packard (India) Globalsoft P. Ltd v DCIT [ITA.1031/Bang/2011, dt.23.09.2015] also, and this Tribunal following its decision in SAP Labs (supra) had directed the exclusion of the companies assailed here. As per the Ld. AR, if these companies are excluded, the final set of comparables that would remain are Datamatics Ltd, Geometric Ltd (seg), IGate Global Solutions Ltd, LGS Glob ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tions Ltd, Tata Elxsi Ltd (seg), Thirdware Solutions Ltd (seg) and Wipro Ltd (seg) are concerned, the issue of comparability of these companies had come up before this Tribunal in the case of NXP Semiconductors India P. Ltd (supra). Analysis done in the said decision was also for software development services segment and the TPO in the said case had also selected the very same set of 26 companies. Said decision being for the very same assessment year 2007-08, we are of the opinion that it can be taken as a good precedence for deciding the issue of comparability raised by the assessee herein, in so far as these companies are concerned. This Tribunal had observed as under : i) Accel Transmatic Ltd. 48. With regard to this company, the complaint of the assessee is that this company is not a pure software development service company. It is further submitted that in a Mumbai Tribunal Decision of Capgemini India (F) Ltd v Ad. CIT 12 Taxman.com 51, the DRP accepted the contention of the assessee that Accel Transmatic should be rejected as comparable. The relevant observations of DRP as extracted by the ITAT in its order are as follows: "In regard to Accel Transmatics Ltd. the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ist of comparables." ii) Avani Cimcon Technologies Ltd. 39. As far as this company is concerned, the plea of the Assessee has been that this company is functionally different from the assessee. Based on the information available in the company's website, which reveals that this company has developed a software product by name "DXchange", it was submitted that this company would have revenue from software product sales apart from rendering of software services and therefore is functionally different from the assessee. It was further submitted that the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal to the decision in the case of Telcordia Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT - ITA No.7821/Mum/2011 wherein the Tribunal accepted the assessee's contention that this company has revenue from software product and observed that in the absence of segmental details, Avani Cincom cannot be considered as comparable to the assessee who was rendering software development services only and it was held as follows:- "7.8 Avani Cincom Technologies Ltd. ('Avani Cincom'): Here in this case also the segmental details of operating income of IT services and sale of software products have not been provided so as to see whet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red Revenue Expenditure" (page 31 of PB-II), it is mentioned that, "Expenditure incurred on research and development of new products has been treated as deferred revenue expenditure and the same has been written off in 10 years equally yearly installments from the year in which it is incurred." An amount of Rs. 11,692,020/- has been debited to the Profit and Loss Account as "Deferred Revenue Expenditure" (page 30 of PB-II). This amounts to nearly 8.28 percent of the sales of this company. It was therefore submitted that the acceptance of this company as a comparable for the reason that it is into pure software development activities and is not engaged in R&D activities is bad in law. 43. Further reference was also made to the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Teva Pharma Private Ltd. v. Addl. CIT - ITA No.6623/Mum/2011 (for AY 2007-08) in which the comparability of this company for clinical trial research segment. The relevant extract of discussion regarding this company is as follows: "The learned D.R. however drew our attention to page-389 of the paper book which is an extract from the Directors report which reads as follows: 'The Company has devel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase vehemently argued that this company is into research in pharmaceutical products. The ITAT concluded that this company is owner of IPR, it has software for discovery of new drugs and has developed molecule to treat cancer. In the ultimate analysis, the ITAT did not consider this company as a comparable in clinical trial segment, for the reason that this company has diverse business. It was submitted that, however, from the above extracts it is clear that this company is not into software development activities, accordingly, this company should be rejected as a comparable being functionally different. 45.From the material available on record, it transpires that the TPO has accepted that up to AY 06-07 this company was classified as a Research and Development company. According to the TPO in AY 07- 08 this company has been classified as software development service provider in the Capitaline/Prowess database as well as in the annual report of this company. The TPO has relied on the response from this company to a notice u/s.133(6) of the Act in which it has said that it is in the business of providing software development services. The Assessee in reply to the proposal of the AO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see had objected to the inclusion of this company as a comparable on the ground that it was functionally different from the assessee. The TPO had rejected the objections raised by the assessee on the ground that as per the information received in response to notice under section 133(6) of the Act, this company is engaged in software development services and satisfies all the filters. 14.2 Before us, the learned Authorised Representative contended that this company ought to be excluded from the list of comparables on the ground that it is functionally different to the assessee. It is submitted by the learned Authorised Representative that this company is engaged in 'e-Business Consulting Services', consisting of Web Strategy Services, I T design services and in Technology Consulting Services including product development consulting services. These services, the learned Authorised Representative contends, are high end ITES normally categorised as knowledge process Outsourcing ('KPO') services. It is further submitted that this company has not provided segmental data in its Annual Report. The learned Authorised Representative submits that since the Annual Report of the company does ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of items at (9) and (11) namely Helios & Matheson Information Technology Ltd., and KALS Information Solutions Ltd. (Seg). The primary plea raised by the assessee to assail the inclusion of the aforesaid two companies from the list of comparables is to be effect that they are functionally incomparable and therefore, are liable to be excluded. In sum and substance, the plea set up by the assessee is that both the aforesaid concerns are engaged in development and sale of software products which is functionally different from the services undertaken by the assessee in its IT-services segment. 17. As per the discussion in para 6.3.2. of the order of the TPO, the reason advanced for including KALS Information Systems Ltd., is to the effect that the said concern's application software segment is engaged in the development of software which can be considered as comparable to the assessee company. The said concern is engaged in two segments namely application software segment and Training. As per the TPO, the application software segment is functionally comparable to the assessee as the said concern is engaged in software services. The stand of the assessee is that a perusal of the Annu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment year and in the present year also, on the basis of the Annual Report, referred to in the written submissions addressed to the lower authorities, the assessee has correctly asserted out that the said concern was inter alia engaged in sale of software products, which was quite distinct from the activity undertaken by the assessee in the IT Services segment. At the time of hearing, neither is there any argument put forth by the Revenue and nor is there any discussion emerging from the orders of the lower authorities as to in what manner the functional profile of the said concern has undergone a change from that in the immediately preceding year. Therefore, having regard to the factual aspects brought out by the assessee, it is correctly asserted that the application software segment of the said concern is not comparable to the assessee's segment of IT services. 20. With regard to the inclusion of Helios & Matheson Information Technology Ltd., the assessee has raised similar arguments as in the case of KALS Information Solutions Ltd. (Seg). We have perused the relevant para of the order of the TPO i.e., 6.3.21, in terms of which the said concern has been included as a comparable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a, opposing the contentions of the assessee, the learned Departmental Representative submitted that comparability cannot be decided merely on the basis of scale of operations and the operating margins of this company have not been extraordinary. In view of this, the learned Departmental Representative supported the decision of the TPO to include this company in the list of comparable companies. 12.4 We have heard the rival submissions and perused and carefully considered the material on record. We find that the assessee has brought on record sufficient evidence to establish that this company is functionally dis-similar and different from the assessee and hence is not comparable and the finding rendered in the case of Trilogy EBusiness Software India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) for Assessment Year 2007-08 is applicable to this year also. The argument put forth by assessee's is that Infosys Technologies Ltd is not functionally comparable since it owns significant intangible and has huge revenues from software products. It is also seen that the break up of revenue from software services and software products is not available. In this view of the matter, we hold that this company ought to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he facts of the case before us are similar, respectfully following the decision of the co-ordinate bench, we hold that these two companies are also to be excluded. 21. Respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal referred to above, we direct the AO/TPO to exclude the aforesaid companies from the final list of comparable companies for the purpose of determining ALP. x) Persistent Systems Ltd. 17.1.1 This company was selected by the TPO as a comparable. The assessee objected to the inclusion of this company as a comparable for the reasons that this company being engaged in software product designing and analytic services, it is functionally different and further that segmental results are not available. The TPO rejected the assessee's objections on the ground that as per the Annual Report for the company for Financial Year 2007-08, it is mainly a software development company and as per the details furnished in reply to the notice under section 133(6) of the Act, software development constitutes 96% of its revenues. In this view of the matter, the Assessing Officer included this company i.e. Persistent Systems Ltd., in the list of comparables as it qualified the funct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... omitted from the set of comparables for the year under consideration. It is ordered accordingly. xii) Tata Elxsi Ltd. 14.1 This company was a comparable selected by the TPO. Before the TPO, the assessee had objected to the inclusion of this company in the set of comparables on several counts like, functional dissimilarity, significant R&D activity, brand value, size, etc. The TPO, however, rejected the contention put forth by the assessee and included this company in the set of comparables. 14.2 Before us, it was reiterated that this company is not functionally comparable to the assessee as it performs a variety of functions under the software development and services segment namely (a) Product design services (b) Innovation design engineering and (c) visual computing labs. In the submissions made the assessee had quoted relevant portions from the Annual Report of the company to this effect. In view of this, the learned Authorised Representative pleaded that this company be excluded from the list of comparables. 14.3 Per contra, the learned Departmental Representative supported the stand o the TPO in including this company in the list of comparables. 14.4.1 We ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee has objected to the inclusion of this company as a comparable for the reason that apart from software development services, it is in the business of product development and trading in software and giving licenses for use of software. In this regard, the learned Authorised Representative submitted that :- (i) This company is engaged in product development and earns revenue from sale of licences and subscription. It has been pointed out from the Annual Report that the company has not provided any separate segmental profit and loss account for software development services and product development services. (ii) In the case of E-Gain communications Pvt. Ltd. (2008-TII-04- ITAT-PUNE-TP), the Tribunal has directed that this company be omitted as a comparable for software service providers, as its income includes income from sale of licences which has increased the margins of the company. The learned A.R. prayed that in the light of the above facts and in view of the afore cited decision of the Tribunal (supra), this company ought to be omitted from the list of comparables. 15.2 Per contra, the learned Departmental Representative supported the action of the TPO in including ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed both in software development and product development services. There is no information on the segmental bifurcation of revenue from sale of product and software services. The TPO appears to have adopted this company as a comparable without demonstrating how the company satisfies the software development sales 75% of the total revenue filter adopted by him. Another major flaw in the comparability analysis carried out by the TPO is that he adopted comparison of the consolidated financial statements of Wipro with the stand alone financials of the assessee; which is not an appropriate comparison. 13.4.2 We also find that this company owns intellectual property in the form of registered patents and several pending applications for grant of patents. In this regard, the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of 24/7 Customer.Com Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No.227/Bang/2010) has held that a company owning intangibles cannot be compared to a low risk captive service provider who does not own any such intangible and hence does not have an additional advantage in the market. As the assessee in the case on hand does not own any intangibles, following the aforesaid decision of the coordinate be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the figures available in such annual report. 28. In the case of Flextronics Software Systems Ltd (seg), no doubt the annual report was for the year ending 31.03.2007. However it was only for a nine months period. No reconciliation was attempted by the lower authorities between the figures given in such annual report with the figures which were made available by the said company to the TPO pursuant to notice issued to them u/s.133(6) of the Act. No doubt at page 123 of TP order, TPO has stated that the software development service revenues were more than 75% based on the following figures : But how this segmentation was done by the TPO and the reconciliation of the said segmentation with the annual report of the assessee was never attempted or done. In such a situation we are of the opinion that Flextronics Software Solutions Ltd (seg) could not be considered as a proper comparable. We direct exclusion thereof. We are therefore of the opinion that Flextronics Software Systems Ltd (seg) has to be excluded from the list of comparables. 15. As for the comparability of Megasoft Ltd, observations of the Tribunal in HP Globalsoft (India) P. Ltd(supra), is reproduced hereunder : Me ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e product segment of Megasoft is substantially different from its software service segment. The product segment has employee cost of 27.65% whereas the software service segment has employee cost of 50%. Similarly, the profit margin on cost in product segment is 117.95% and in case of software service segment it is 23.11%. Both the segments are substantially different and therefore comparison at entity level is without basis and would vitiate the comparability (submissions on page 381 to 383 of the PB-I). It was further submitted that Megasoft Limited has provided segmental break-up between the software services segment and software product segment (page 68 of PB-II), which was also adopted by the TPO in his show cause notice (Page 84 of PB-I). The segmental results i.e., results pertaining to software services segment of this company was: Segmental Operating Revenues Rs. 63,71,32,544 Segmental Operating Expenses Rs. 51,75,13,211 Operating Profit Rs. 11,96,19,333 OP/TC (PLI) 23.11% 26. It was reiterated that in the given circumstances only PLI of software service segment viz., 23.11% ought to have been selected for comparison. 27. It was further submitted that the learne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Claim was in respect of additional wages paid to 976 new workman. Total wages paid to such new workman came to Rs. 30,88,89,102/- and at 30% thereof, the amount worked out to Rs. 9,26,66,731/-. Unitwise details of the claim were as under : 20. It is to be noted that assessee was claiming exemption u/s.10A on Unit-2, Unit-3 and Unit-4 which were situated in Bengaluru, Gurgaon and Chandigarh respectively. As per AO, assessee was not eligible for such deduction in view of Section 80A(4). As per the AO assessee was hit by the limitation mentioned in Section 80A(4) . He rejected the claim of exemption of Rs. 9,26,66,731/-. When a proposal on the above lines was given, assessee chose to move the DRP. 21. Objections of the assessee before the DRP was that there was no scope for invoking sub-section 4 of section 80A. As per the assessee, the said sub-section restricted only a claim which was linked to profit. As per the assessee, deduction u/s.80JJAA was not linked to profit. In any case, as per the assessee, additional wages paid by it during the year consisted of a sum of Rs. 11,93,45,597/- to 383 new regular workman employed in Unit-1 which was not claiming deduction u/s.10A of the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y of more than Rs. 1,600 per month only be excluded from the definition of workman. In appellant's case the software engineers in respect of whom deduction under s. 80JJAA has been claimed have not been employed in a supervisory capacity even though they may be getting a salary of more than Rs. 1,600 per month. As the software engineers were not employed in supervisory capacity they cannot be excluded from the definition of workman. Further as per the notification of the Karnataka Government, the appellant company engaged in the development of software is covered by the Industrial Disputes Act. As such, I am of the considered opinion that the appellant has satisfied all the conditions for claiming relief under s. 80JJAA. However, I find that the appellant has claimed deduction of Rs. 2,55,81,220 with reference to the additional wages of Rs. 8,52,70,736 which included the wages of Rs. 4,87,64,029 in respect of the new workmen employed during the year ended 31st March, 2000 relevant to the asst. yr. 2000- 01. As there was no claim for relief under s. 80JJAA for the asst. yr. 2000-01, the relief in respect of the workers employed in asst. yr. 2000-01 cannot be considered for relie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ployed not in the category of supervisory control. All these details were filed before the AO during assessment proceedings. These facts were not properly considered by the AO. Further, from the order of the CIT(A), it is seen that he had taken note of the notification issued by the Government of Karnataka and concluded that as per the notification issued, the assessee company engaged in the development of software is covered by the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Further it is not the case of the Revenue that the assessee did not fulfil the conditions extracted elsewhere in this order. Considering all those factual matters we do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A) according relief to the assessee. In fact he had clarified the relevant portions related to Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and IT Act while granting relief to the asssessee which are extracted at pp. 5 and 6 of this order. After carefully considering the same, we are inclined to accept the reasons shown by the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT-Departmental Representative could not assail the finding reached by the learned CIT(A) by bringing in any valid materials. The order of the CIT(A) is confirmed. It is ordered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch claim in respect of unit-1, where it was not claiming any deduction, in our opinion is incorrect. We, therefore set aside the orders of authorities below for the limited purpose of quantifying the eligible deduction u/s.80JJA in respect of Unit-1. In the result, ground no.6 is treated as partly allowed for statistical purpose. 28. Vide its ground 7 grievance raised by the assessee is interest of Rs. 597,06,982/- which related to its non 10A unit was allocated to other software units, thereby depressing its claim of exempt income from 10A units and prorata increasing the income of the non-10A unit. 29. Facts apropos are that assessee had claimed deduction under section 10A of the Act, in respect of its Salarpuria, Gurgaon and Chandigarh units. The claims were for Rs. 12,96,59,506/-, Rs. 2,93,22,892/- and Rs. 8,39,936/- respectively. Profits of these units against which the above deductions were claimed as under : Bangalore Salarpuria Unit Rs. 13,05,55,108 Gurgaon Unit Rs. 3,19,13,546 Chandigarh Unit Rs. 8,39,906 30. AO noted that assessee had charged interest of Rs. 18,14,023/- on the above three units whereas on unit-1, where there was no claim u/s.10A of the Act, there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tated that the campus construction was intended for the said unit. However the DRP was not impressed. DRP held that AO was justified in reallocating the cost. 33. Now before us, Ld. AR strongly assailing the orders of authorities below submitted that the loan was not at all utilised for unit-2. According to him, it was demonstrated that loan of Rs. 66 crores was utilised for rolling over the earlier loan taken for the purpose of financing the campus construction where unit-1 was housed. According to the Ld. AR, accounts of each unit were separately kept. Hence the reallocation attempted was incorrect and unjustified. 34. Per contra, Ld. DR supported the orders of lower authorities. 35. We have perused the orders and heard the rival contentions. Claim of the assessee is that unit-2 started production only in April, 2005 and the unit-1 and unit-2 were housed separately. As per the assessee Unit-2 was not utilising the campus facility, where unit-1 was situated. We find that both unit-1 and unit-2 were situated in Whitefield, Bangalore. It might be true that the loans were earlier taken for the purpose of construction of unit-1. However, it is an admitted position that unit-1 and c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h Court in the case of Tata Elxsi Ltd v. CIT [349 ITR 98]. Accordingly, we direct the AO to rework the deduction u/s.10A of the Act, after reducing the amounts which are deducted from export turnover from total turnover also. Ground.8 of the assessee is dismissed whereas ground 9 is allowed. 38. Vide its ground 10, grievance raised by the assessee is that it was not allowed deduction of Rs. 8,39,905/- u/s.10A of the Act, in respect of its business undertaking located in Chandigarh, registered with STP authorities. 39. Facts apropos are that the Chandigarh unit in which assessee was claiming deduction u/s.10A of the Act was purchased on a slump sale basis from a company called M/s. Virsa Systems P. Ltd (in short 'Virsa'). As per the assessee deduction u/s.10A was specific to the undertaking. Just because the undertaking came under a new ownership, the deduction cpi;d not be denied. However, the AO was not impressed. According to him, one of the conditions for giving deduction u/s.10A was that the undertaking on which such deduction was claimed should not be formed by transfer of plant and machinery previously used. As per the AO, assessee's undertaking in Chandigarh was formed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ars for such unit. Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sonata Software Ltd, (supra) in a similar situation had held as under : 8. The issue before the court is whether the two requirements, cast in negative terms, have been fulfilled. Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 10A stipulates that the industrial undertaking must not be formed by splitting up or reconstruction of a business already in existence. In other words, the test in law is as to whether the undertaking is formed by splitting up or reconstruction of a business already in existence. In CIT v. Gaekwar Foam and Rubber Co. Ltd. [1959] 35 ITR 662 (Bom) a Division Bench of this court construed the provisions of section 15C of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, section 15C(2)(i) contained a similar provision that the section would apply to an industrial undertaking which is not formed by the splitting up or the reconstruction of a business already in existence or by the transfer to a new business of building, machinery or plant used in a business which was being carried on before April 1, 1948. In that case, there was a partnership firm and its assets and goodwill were taken over by the assessee for a stated consi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Division Bench held, means that substantially the same business is carried on and substantially the same persons carry it on (page 671) : "The emphasis, it will be noticed, is on two things-when substantially the same business was carried on and substantially the same persons were carrying it on. It is also to be noticed that the learned judge draws a clear distinction between a reconstruction and a sale of an undertaking. In the case of a sale, there can be no ques tion of reconstruction. Now, in these matters, we have to look at the substance of the transaction and not the form. If looking at the substance of the transaction, it is a sale, then the concept of recon struction must be ruled out for in such a case there is no scope for speaking about any reconstruction of an existing business." 9. The judgment of the Division Bench of this court in Gaekwar Foam [1959] 35 ITR 662 (Bom) was approved by the Supreme Court in a judgment in Textile Machinery Corporation Ltd. v. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 195 (SC). The Supreme Court, in that case, dealt with the issue as to whether within the meaning of section 15C(2)(i) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the industrial undertakings which c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee were to be effected after April 1, 2001, that would result in the undertaking being disentitled to the benefit under section 10A. This was a pointer to the fact that prior to the substitution a transfer of ownership or beneficial interest in the undertaking would not disentitle an assessee to the benefit of section 10A. (As a matter of fact it may also be noted that the provisions of section 10A(9) were omitted by the Finance Act, 2003, with effect from April 1, 2004). 43. Thus it has been held by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court that slump sale could not be considered as a reconstruction of business. Similar view was also taken by the coordinate bench in the case of LG Soft India P. Ltd (supra). We are therefore of the opinion that assessee was eligible for claiming deduction u/s.10A of the Act, for its Chandigarh unit for the balance sheet for the period of availability of deduction u/s.10A of the Act. We therefore set aside the orders of lower authorities in this regard and remit the issue back to the AO for consideration afresh in accordance with law for verifying whether the claim for deduction u/s.10A of the Act, on Chandigarh unit is within the total period for which su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
