TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 1358X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ision of CIT v. Tata Elxsi Ltd. [ 2011 (8) TMI 782 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] held that, if any expenditure is excluded from export turnover, then the same needs to be excluded from total turnover as well, accordingly, directing Ld.AO to exclude expenses deducted from export turnover from total turnover for computing deduction u/s 10A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Further in respect of exclusion of loss earned from noneligible unit for computing profits of eligible unit under section 10A, DRP relied on decision of Hon ble Karnataka High Court in case of and CIT v. Yokogava India Ltd. [ 2011 (8) TMI 845 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] No infirmity in view taken by DRP/AO as it is supported by ratios held by Hon ble jurisdictional High Court. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is, therefore, bad in law. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned AO has erred, in law and facts, in assessing the total income of the Appellant at INR 312,875,888 as against the returned income of INR 194,511,019 and arriving at the total tax and interest payable (as reduced by the tax deducted at source and advance tax) by the Appellant at INR 59,299,550. (II) Transfer Pricing grounds 3. The learned AO/ Transfer Pricing Officer ( TPO ) erred in making an addition of INR 113,287,872 to the total income of the Appellant on account of adjustment in the arm's length price of the software development services transaction entered by the Appellant with its associated enterprise; 4. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble companies identified by the Appellant using 'Employee cost greater than 25 percent of total cost' as a comparability criterion; (d) The learned AO!TPO erred, in law and in facts, by rejecting certain comparable companies identified by the Appellant using 'Export earnings less than 75 percent of operating revenues' as a comparability criterion; 8. The learned AOITPO erred, in law and in facts, by accepting I rejecting companies based on unreasonable comparability criteria. 9. The learned AOITPO erred, in law and in facts, by not considering gains/ losses arising out of foreign exchange fluctuations, bank charges and provision for doubtful debts while computing the operating margins of the comparable comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to such exempt income. 14.2. The learned AG has erred in not considering the submissions made by the Appellant and appreciating the fact that the Appellant has not incurred any expenditure in relation to income not includible in total taxable income. 14.3. The learned AG has erred, in law and on facts, by computing INR 515,175, as disallowance under section 14A of the Act by applying the provisions of Rule 8D of the Rules. 15. Disallowance of expenses as per the provisions of section 40(a)(i) and 40(a)(ia) of the Act amounting to INR 2,992,562 resulting in double disallowance 15.1. The learned AG has erred in law and in facts in disallowing the year end provisions amounting to INR 22,98,683 under section 40(a)(i) an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal, so as to enable the Honourable Tribunal to decide on the appeal in accordance with the law. ITA No.653/Bang/2016 1. The direction of the Dispute Resolution Panel are opposed to the law and not on the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the DRP erred in law in directing the Assessing Officer to reduce the expenditure incurred in travel, telecommunication etc, both from the Export Turnover as well as the Total Turnover for the purpose of computation of deduction u/s.10A of the IT Act without appreciating the fact that the statue allows exclusion of such expenditure only from the Export turnover by way of specific definition of Export Turnover as envisaged by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay be allowed to be withdrawn with liberty. 4. Ld.Sr.DR did not object to the same. 5. We have perused submissions advances by both sides in light of records placed before us. 6. As assessee has sought for VSVS- scheme 2020, no purpose will be served in keeping the present appeal pending. Considering the situation, we dismiss the present appeal as withdrawn. However, liberty is granted to move appropriate application for recall of this order, in the event, Form 1 filed by assessee is not accepted by revenue. Accordingly, grounds 1-2 and 14-30 in assessee s appeal are allowed to be withdrawn with liberty. ITA No. 653/Bang/2016 7. In respect of appeal filed by revenue, it has been submitted that, only issue raised is, f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
