TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 908X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is appeal. Ground Nos. 1 and 4 are general in nature hence, do not require any adjudication. 3. In ground No.2, the assessee has raised the issue of exclusion of certain expenses from export turnover while computing deduction u/s 10A of the Act. 4. Briefly, the facts are while framing the draft assessment order, the Assessing Officer noticed that while computing deduction u/s 10A of the Act, the assessee has included the following expenditure. i) Communication charges ₹ 19,83,324 ii) Insurance ₹ 70,146 iii) Professional charges ₹ 1,91,63,731 The Assessing Officer opined that in view of the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ITO vs. Saks Soft Ltd., (313 ITR 353 (AT). Merely because the department has carried the dispute to the Hon ble Supreme Court the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decision of the Hon ble High Court and Special Bench of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal would not become inapplicable. In aforesaid view of the matter, respectfully following the decision of the Hon ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Gem Plus Jewellery (I) Ltd., decision of Hon ble Karnataka High Court in case of CIT vs. Tata Elxsi Ltd., (349 ITR 98) and of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Special Bench in case of ITO vs. Saks Soft Limited, we direct the Assessing Officer to re-compute the deduction u/s 10A of the Act after reducing the expenses towards communication charges, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t was submitted that profits and gains referred to in section 10A should be computed in accordance with the provisions of section 43B of the Act. Hence the profits and gains eligible for deduction u/s 10A shall be after considering the disallowances provided in sections 36(1)(va),40A(7) and 43B of the Act. In support of such contention, the assessee relied upon decision of Hon ble Bombay High Court in case of Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd. (supra) ad also orders passed by the different benches of the Tribunal. The assessee also brought to the notice of the DRP that in assessee s own case for asst. Year 2008-09 the DRP has decided the issue in favour of the assessee. The DRP however did not accept the contention of the assessee by observing t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
