TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (12) TMI 1752
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t order u/s 143(3) dated 31/12/2010 in the A.O has already denied exemption to the appellant u/s 10A with result, the impugned assessment order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The A.O has already initiated reassessment proceeding u/s 148 of the Act for the year under review to revisit the claim of the appellant u/s 10A of the Act. The provision contained u/s 263 (1)(c) of the Act does not empower the Ld.CIT(A) to review the deduction u/s 10(A) which is already subject matter of appeal filed by the department against the order dated 15/3/2011 passed by the Ld.CIT(A)-XIII, New Delhi. 2. That any other grounds of appeal may be added/deleted or amend at the time of hearing." 3. The assessee company is eng....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....last three previous years have been completed u/s 143(3) after considering report of TPO u/s 92 of the Act, without any adverse finding. The Assessing Officer determined taxable income of the assessee at Rs. 49,74,14,740/- declared in the revised I.T. Return. The Assessing Officer reduced the exemption u/s 10A to the extent of Rs. 43,49,83,092/- and further held that gain on account of currency fluctuation to the extent of Rs. 1,23,33,934/- is also not eligible for exemption as the same is due to post export events as result of which the Assessing Officer denied the exemption to the assessee to the extent of Rs. 44,73,17,026/- (Rs. 43,49,83,092/- + Rs. 1,23,33,934/-), as against Rs. 50,52,24,355/- claimed in the revised return. The Assessin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts as raised by the Commissioner of Income Tax in notice as well as order u/s 263. The TPO considered comparable companies which obviously would mean that he has seen the nature of product of the assessee and other comparable companies and functions performed by the assessee and comparable companies. The TPO recorded in the TP order that records have been kept as per rule 10D which means that comprehensive records have been kept and were examined by the TPO. The TPO considered audit report in form no. 3CEB. A copy of Computation of Income and Acknowledgment of Return claiming deduction u/s 10A and the part of balance sheet showing export of Software and software development expense were considered in original assessment by the Assessing Off....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....303 ITR 256 (Del.) vii. CIT(A) Vs. Design & Automation Engineers (Bombay) (P) Ltd. 13 DTR 145 (Bom) viii. Ms. Mayawati Vs. CIT(A) 18 DTR 46 (TRB, 2009) ix. Rajiv Agnihotri Vs. CIT(A) 23 DTR 476 (Del) Trib. x. Kulbir Singh Vs. Asst. CIT(A) 24 DTR 421 (Agra) Trib. xi. CIT(A) Vs. Unique Autofelts (P) Ltd. 30 DTR 231 (P & H). xii. CIT(A) Vs. Deepak Mittal 37 DTR 8 ( P & H), 2010) 37 DTR (P & H) 8 xiii. Double Dot Finance Ltd. Vs. Asstt. CIT(A) 38 DTR 220 (Mumbai) xiv CIT(A) vs. Hindustan Marketing and Advertising Co. Ltd. 46 DTR 109 (Del.) xv. Raj Shyama Construction (P) Ltd. Vs. Asstt. CIT 135 TTJ 33 (Del.) xvi. CIT(A) vs. Hero Auto Ltd. 343 ITR 342 (Del.) xvii. 203 ITR 108 (Bom)- xviii. 348 ITR 485 (Del) (FB) The Ld. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Add. CIT 94 TTJ 1036(Del) vii. Hoogly Mills vs ACIT 71 ITD 264 (Cal) viii. Sahara India Mutual vs CIT 74 TTJ 67 (All) ix. Sahara vs CIT 90 TTJ 878(A11) x. Sheena Industries vs CIT (Del)(Trib) The Ld AR further submitted that the case of CIT is that Assessing Officer ought to have done more detailed enquiry which cannot be the basis for revision as held in case of CIT vs. Hindustan Marketing & Advt. Co. 341 ITR 180(Del). The Ld. AR submitted that once assessment order is passed after TPO order, revision is not possible as held in 55 SOT l(Mum) and in case of Tata Chemicals Ltd. ITA (TP) 3121, 3122/Mum/2013 dated 20.12.2013. The Ld. AR further submitted that if the CIT felt that the enquiry was inadequate then he must make enquiry a....