M/s. Intra Action Software, Ahmedabad V. The DCIT, Circle-3(3), Ahmedabad

CO 8/AHD/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4789 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 19-10-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 23-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VS
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 10B; 143(2); 13; 22; 10

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, AHMEDABAD (THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT) BEFORESHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ANDSHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SL. NO(S) ITA NO(S) ASSET. YEAR(S) APPEAL(S) BY APPELLANT VS. RESPONDENT APPELLANT RESPONDENT 1. 1086/AHD/2017 2010-11 DCIT CIRCLE-3(3), AHMEDABAD M/S. INTRA ACTION SOFTWARE B-5, MANTRA, OPP. SHRADHA PETROL PUMP JUDGES BUNGLOWS ROAD, AHMEDABAD-380015 PAN NO. AABFI3315F SL. NO(S) C.O. NO(S) ASSET. YEAR(S) APPEAL(S) BY APPELLANT VS. RESPONDENT APPELLANT RESPONDENT 2. 08/AHD/2018 2010-11 M/S. INTRA ACTION SOFTWARE B-5, MANTRA, OPP. SHRADHA PETROL PUMP JUDGES BUNGLOWS ROAD, AHMEDABAD-380015 PAN NO. AABFI3315F DCIT CIRCLE-3(3), AHMEDABAD REVENUE BY : SHRI VIRENDRA OJHA, CIT DR. ASSESSEE BY : SHRI BHAVIN MARFATIA, AR / DATE OF HEARING : 20.08.2020 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19.10.2020 / O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AND THE CRO SS OBJECTION HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2010-11 WHICH A RE ARISING FROM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-3, AHMEDABAD DATED 22.02.2017, IN THE PRO CEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 144R.W.S. 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). 2 ITA NO. 1086/AHD/2017 & C.O. NO. 08/AHD/2018 AY: 2010-11 2. THE INTER CONNECTED ISSUE RAISED BY THE REVENUE I S THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10A OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS. 2,98,00,647/-. 3. THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IN THE P RESENT CASE IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM AND ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF COMPUTER SOFTWA RE DEVELOPMENT AND IT ENABLED SERVICES. THE ASSESSEEIS ALSO REGISTERED WI TH SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY PARK OF INDIA (STPI),GANDHINAGAR. THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEA R UNDER CONSIDERATION FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING INCOMEAT NIL AFTER C LAIMING THE DEDUCTION OF RS.2,98,00,647/- UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10 A OF THE ACT WHICH WAS ALSO ACCEPTED BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED UNDER S ECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 31 ST OCTOBER 2012. 4. HOWEVER, THE LEARNED CIT UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT PERCEIVED THAT THE ORDER FRAMED BY THE LEARNED AO UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT DATED 31 ST OCTOBER 2012 AS ERRONEOUS INSOFAR PREJUDICIAL TO TH E INTEREST OF REVENUE FOR THE REASONS THATTHE ASSESSEEWAS NOT LOCATED WITHIN THE AREA OF STPI GANDHINAGAR BUT SITUATED IN AHMADABAD. THUS, THE ASSESSEE FAILE D TO COMPLY WITH THE CONDITION PRESCRIBED UNDER SECTION 10A(2)(I)(B) OF ACT. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTIO N 10(A) OF THE ACT. 5. THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT SUBMITTED THAT IT IS NOT NEC ESSARY THAT UNIT (ASSESSEE) HAS TO BE LOCATED/SITUATED WITHIN THE AREA OF SOFTWARE TECH NOLOGY PARK. WHAT IS REQUIRED FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10A O F THE ACT IS THAT UNIT HAS TO BE REGISTERED WITHSOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY PARK. 6. FURTHERMORE, ALL THE CONDITIONS AS SPECIFIED FOR SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY PARK REGISTRATION HAVE BEEN DULY COMPLIED BY THE ASSESSE E. AS SUCH, THE UNIT OF THE 3 ITA NO. 1086/AHD/2017 & C.O. NO. 08/AHD/2018 AY: 2010-11 ASSESSEE CAN BE LOCATED/SITUATED AT ANY PLACE BUT T HE SAME SHOULD BE REGISTERED WITH THE SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY PARK. 7. HOWEVER THE LEARNED CIT DISAGREED WITH THE CONTENT ION OF THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING THAT THE CONDITIONS AS SPECIFIED UNDER SE CTION 10A(2)(I)(B) OF THE ACT I.E. BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF COMPUTER SOFTWARE TO BE CARRIED OUT IN STP AS NOTIFIED BY THE GOVT. OF INDIAHAVE NOT BEEN COMPLIE D WITH AND, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION. ACCORDINGLY , THE LEARNED CIT UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER FRAMED BY THE AO UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT DATED 31ST OCTOBER 2012 F OR DE NOVO ASSESSMENT. 8. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE AO ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) DATED 08 TH JUNE 2015 TO THE ASSESSEE FOR DE NOVO ASSESSMENT. S UBSEQUENTLY, THE AO ISSUED THE SHOW CAUSENOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE UNDER S ECTION 142(1) OF THE ACT DATED 03 RD JULY 2015 PROPOSING THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE DEDUCTI ON CLAIMED BY IT UNDER SECTION 10A OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, THERE WAS NO COMPL IANCE FROM THE SIDE OF THE ASSESSEE. THUS, THE AO, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DOCUM ENTARY EVIDENCE, DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE DEDUCTION UNDER S ECTION 10A OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS. 2,98,00,647/- AND ADDED THE SAME T O THE TOTAL INCOME. 9. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL TO THE LEA RNED CIT(A). 10. THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) SUBMITTED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10A OF THE ACT DOES NOT REQUIRE THE ASSESSE E TO BE SITUATED WITHIN THE AREA OF SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY PARK. WHAT IS REQUIRED IS TH AT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE REGISTERED WITH THE SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY PARK SCHEME AND IT SHOULD COMMENCE MANUFACTURING & PRODUCING COMPUTER SOFTWARE ON OR A FTER 1 ST APRIL 1994 WHICH HAS BEEN DULY FULFILLED. 4 ITA NO. 1086/AHD/2017 & C.O. NO. 08/AHD/2018 AY: 2010-11 11. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT, IT HAS BEEN REGISTERED WITH JURISDICTIONAL OFFICE OF STPI AFTER DUE COMPLIANCE O F ALL NECESSARY REQUIREMENTS WHICH IS SITUATED AT INFOCITYGANDHINAGAR. IT HAS BE EN GRANTED REGISTRATION IN THE YEAR 2003 W.E.F. 29 TH MAY 2003 VIDE SANCTION LETTER NO- STIPG/EXIM/IAS/383/3047 WHICH IS RENEWED FROM 22ND A UGUST 2003. FURTHER THE GANDHINAGARSOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY PARK IS A REGULAT ORY AUTHORITY LOOKING AFTER THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SCHEME UNDER ITS JURISDIC TION. AS SUCH THE PROVISION OF SECTION 10(2)(I)(B) DOES NOT MANDATE THAT THE UNIT SHOULD BE SITUATED AT THE PREMISES WHERE OFFICE OF THE STPI DESIGNATED OFFICER IS LOCATED.THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT MINISTRY OF COMMERCE VIDE NO TIFICATION NO- 33/(RE)/92- 97 DATED 22 ND MARCH, 1994 ALSO CLARIFIED THAT STP UNIT MAY BE SIT UATED AT ANY PLACE AS PERMITTED BY THE DESIGNATED OFFICER. THE A SSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION ALSO FILED A CLARIFICATION LETTER DATED 13.10.2015 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR OF SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY PARK OF INDIA, GANDHINAGAR. THE LEARNED CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION O F THE ASSESSEE ALLOWED THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY IT UNDER SECTION 10A OF THE AC T BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 11.1 THE ASSESSEE FIRM MADE 100% EXPORT SALE. ITS AC COUNTS HAVE BEEN DULY VERIFIED BY QUALIFIED CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT WHO HAS CERTIFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10B OF THE ACT . 11.2 ALL THE PAYMENT AGAINST EXPORT HAS BEEN RECEIV ED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL AFTER DULY CERTIFIED BY RBI, STPI AND CHARTERED ACCO UNTANT IN FORM 56F. 11.3 THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OF INDIA VIDE NOTIFICATI ON NO. 33/(RE)/92-97 DATED 22 ND MARCH 1994 DISTINGUISHED BETWEEN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10A AND 10B OF THE ACT. AS PER CLAUSE 2.2 OF IMPUGNED NOTIF ICATION A STP MAY BE INDIVIDUAL UNIT WHICH ALSO HAS A CUSTOM BOND UNIT WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF STPI 5 ITA NO. 1086/AHD/2017 & C.O. NO. 08/AHD/2018 AY: 2010-11 DIRECTOR. IN SUCH CASE THE PROVISION OF SECTION 10B OF THE ACT IS APPLICABLE ON THE ASSESSEE. THUS, THE ASSESSEE FIRM FULFILLED THE CON DITION OF SECTION 10B OF THE ACT AND, THEREFORE, IT IS ELIGIBLE OF DEDUCTION UNDER S ECTION 10B INSTEAD OF SECTION 10AOF THE ACT. 11.4 IN THE FIRST INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05, THE AO VIDE ORDER DATED 03 RD MARCH 2011 ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SEC TION 10A OF ACT TO THE ASSESSEE.THEREAFTER THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION CONTINUOUSLY UNDER SECTION 10A OF THE ACT WITHOUT ANY DISPUTE UPTO A.Y. 2009-1 0 I.E. UPTO IMMEDIATE PRECEDING A.Y. 11.5 THE CBDT VIDE CIRCULAR NO.- 149/194/2004/TPL DATED 06 TH JANUARY 2015 DIRECTED THAT THE REGISTRATION WITH STPI IS SUFFICIE NT FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B OF THE ACT. 12. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT( A) THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 13. THE LEARNED DR BEFORE US VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LEARNED AR BEFORE US FILED A PAPER BOOK RUNNING FROM PAGES 1 TO 55 AND SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT FO R THE ASSESSEE TO FUNCTION FROM THE AREA OF SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY PARK AS ALLEGED BY T HE AO. THE LEARNED AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IT IS SUFFICIENT ENOUGH TO C LAIM THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10A OF THE ACT IF THE ASSESSEE IS REGISTERED WITH T HE STPI WHICH HAS BEEN DULY DONE IN THE PRESENT CASE. THE LEARNED AR IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION DREW OUR ATTENTION ON PAGE 24 TO 29 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHERE THE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE WAS PLACED WHICH WAS RENEWED VIDE SANCT ION LETTER DATED 22 ND AUGUST 2008, THE COPY OF THE SAME PLACED ON PAGE 30 TO 31 OF PAPER BOOK. 6 ITA NO. 1086/AHD/2017 & C.O. NO. 08/AHD/2018 AY: 2010-11 14. THE LEARNED AR ALSO DREW ATTENTION ON THE CLARIF ICATION LETTER ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR OF GANDHINAGAR SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY PARK PLACED ON PAGE 32-33 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHEREIN IT WAS STATED THAT AS PER NO TIFICATION NO. 33/(RE)/92-97 DATED 22 ND MARCH 1994 ISSUED BY MINISTRY OF COMMERCE GOVERNMEN T OF INDIA AN INDIVIDUAL UNIT MAY ALSO BE TREATED AS STP UNIT. THE ASSESSEE REGISTERED UNDERSTP SCHEME IS A VALID STP UNIT. THE LEARNED AR VEHEMENTL Y SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). 15. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE, FOR CLA IMING THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10A OF THE ACT REQUIRES TO FULFILL CERTAIN CONDITIONS. AMONG VARIOUS CONDITIONS, ONE OF THE CONDITION WHICH IS IN DISPUT E IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: (2) THIS SECTION APPLIES TO ANY UNDERTAKING WHICH FULFILS ALL THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS, NAMELY : (I) IT HAS BEGUN OR BEGINS TO MANUFACTURE OR PROD UCE ARTICLES OR THINGS OR COMPUTER SOFTWARE DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE A SSESSMENT YEAR (A) *********** (B) COMMENCING ON OR AFTER THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 1994, IN ANY ELECTRONIC HARDWARE TECHNOLOGY PARK, OR, AS THE CASE MAY BE, SOFTWARE T ECHNOLOGY PARK; (C) *************** 16. THE ABOVE CONDITION HAS BEEN INTERPRETED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE UNDERTAKING CLAIMING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10A OF THE ACT SHOULD BE LOCATED IN ANY ELECTRONIC SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY PARK. AS PER THE AO, THE GANDHINAGAR SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY PARK IS IN GANDHINAGAR WHEREAS T HE ASSESSEE IS LOCATED IN AHMEDABAD. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FULFILLED THE ABOVE CONDITION AND, THEREFORE, INELI GIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10A OF THE ACT. 7 ITA NO. 1086/AHD/2017 & C.O. NO. 08/AHD/2018 AY: 2010-11 17. HOWEVER, THE LEARNED CIT(A) DISREGARDED THE CON TENTION OF THE AO BY OBSERVING THAT IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT THE ASSESSE E SHOULD BE LOCATED WITHIN ANY SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY PARK. AS SUCH THE REGISTRATION WITH THE SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY PARK IS SUFFICIENT COMPLIANCE FOR COMPLYI NG WITH THE CONDITION AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. 18. NOW THE CONTROVERSY ARISES, WHETHER IT IS ONE O F THE PRECONDITION FOR THE ASSESSEE TO BE LOCATED IN THE ELECTRONIC SOFTWARE TE CHNOLOGICAL PARK FOR CLAIMING THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10A OF THE ACT. INDEED, THE ASSESSEE IS LOCATED IN AHMEDABAD WHEREAS THE OFFICE OF SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY PARK IS IN GANDHINAGAR. BUT, WE FIND THAT THE DIRECTOR OF GANDHINAGARSOFTWA RE TECHNOLOGY PARK HAS CLARIFIED VIDE LETTER DATED 13 TH OCTOBER 2015 THAT THE UNIT LOCATED IN ANY AREA CAN BE REGISTERED WITH IT AFTER COMPLYING THE NECESSARY CONDITIONS. THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE CLARIFICATION READS AS UNDER: AS PER POINT NO. 2.2 OF NOTIFICATION NO. 33/(RE)/9 2-97 DATED 22 ND MARCH 1994 OF MINISTRY OF COMMERCE, GOVT. OF INDIA A STP UNIT MA Y BE AN INDIVIDUAL UNIT BY ITSELF OR IT MAY BE ONE OF SUCH UNITS LOCATED IN AN AREA DESIGNED AS STP COMPLEX BY THE DEPARTMENT OF ELECTRONICS (COPY ENCLOSED) HENCE M/S. INTRAACTION SOFTWARE WAS A VALID STP UNI T REGISTERED UNDER STP SCHEME FOR THE UNIT LOCATION B/5 MANTRA OPP. AMRAPALI II I, OPP. SHRADDA PETROL PUMP, JUDGES BUNGLOWS ROAD, BODAKDEV, AHMEDABAD REGISTERE D VIDE LETTER OF PERMISSION NO. STPIG/EXIM/S/IAS/383/3047 DATED 29.05.2003. FROM THE ABOVE IT IS TRANSPIRED THAT IT IS NOT NECE SSARY FOR THE ASSESSEE TO BE SITUATED WITHIN THE AREA OF SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY PAR K. AS SUCH UNIT/UNDERTAKING LOCATED WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE DESIGNATED O FFICEROF SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY PARK CAN BE REGISTERED ON STANDALONE BASIS. 19. WE ALSO NOTE THAT DELHI TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF XEROX INDIA LTD. VS. ACIT REPORTED IN [2010] 127 TTJ 84 (DELHI) HAS TAKEN A VI EW THAT THE REGISTRATION WITH 8 ITA NO. 1086/AHD/2017 & C.O. NO. 08/AHD/2018 AY: 2010-11 SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY PARK IS SUFFICIENT COMPLIANCE FO R CLAIMING THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10A OF THE ACT. THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE ORDER READS AS UNDER: 24. IN THIS CASE, WE FIND THAT FINDINGS OF FACTS R ECORDED IN THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) HAVE NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED BY THE LEARNED DE PARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE. WE FURTHER FIND THAT IN THIS CASE, IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY GOVERNMENT OF INDIA DT. 22ND MARCH, 1994 WAS RELEVANT WHERE IN PARA 2.2 THE SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY PARK AS U SED IN S. 10A HAS BEEN DEFINED. WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE AO HAS NOT PROPERLY ANALYZED THE CONTENTS OF PARA 2.2 OF THIS NOTIFICATION AS WELL AS SUBSEQUENT APPR OVALS GIVEN TO ASSESSEE'S UNIT BY THE GOVERNMENT ON THE BASIS OF PARA 2.2 OF THE NOTI FICATION. WHILE PROPERLY ANALYZING PARA 2.2 OF THE NOTIFICATION, THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY OBSERVED THAT THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT OF THE NOTIFICATION THAT A PARTICULA R UNIT IS TO BE LOCATED INSIDE A PARK BUT IT IS ENOUGH IF THE UNIT AT A PARTICULAR L OCATION IS NOTIFIED AS STP. IN THE PRESENT CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, THERE IS THE APPROVAL OF GOVERNMENT OF INDIA WHICH INDICATES THAT THE ASSESSEE'S UNIT WOULD BE LOCATED IN GURGAON. HENCE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE CIT(A) IN HIS WELL REASONED AND WE LL DISCUSSED ORDER AFTER ANALYZING THE PROVISIONS OF S. 10A AS WELL AS THE N OTIFICATION AND SUBSEQUENT APPROVALS OF THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE HAS RIGHTLY CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE FULFILS ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF S . 10A AND IS COVERED WITHIN THE DEFINITION GIVEN IN EXPLN. 2(VII) TO THIS SECTION A ND SO THE CIT(A) RIGHTLY HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION CLAIMED UNDER S. 10A OF IT ACT AND HAS FURTHER RIGHTLY DELETED THE IMPUGNED ADDITION. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN THIS REGARD IS UPHELD. GROUND NO. 1 OF THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS REJECTED. MOVING FORWARD IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION THAT REVE NUE ITSELF HAS ALLOWED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10A OF THE ACT TO THE ASSES SEE FOR FIRST TIME IN THE A.Y. 2004-05. IN SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS, THE ASSESS EE BY FOLLOWING THE SAME CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10A AND REVENUE HAS NOT DISPUTED THE SAME. HOWEVER, IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE AO DIS ALLOWED THE DEDUCTION ONLY AFTER LEARNED COMMISSIONER SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. HENCE, IT IS TRANSPIRED THAT THE REVENUE W AS CONVINCED TO THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10 A. 20. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRM ITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A)AND ACCORDINGLY WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER. HENCE, THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 9 ITA NO. 1086/AHD/2017 & C.O. NO. 08/AHD/2018 AY: 2010-11 21. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. COMING TO CO NO. 08/AHD/2018 A.Y. 2010-11(ASSESSEE S APPEAL):- 22. AT THE OUTSET, WE NOTE THAT THE CO FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS SUPPORTING THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT-A, THUS, THE SAME DOES NOT REQ UIRE ANY SEPARATE ADJUDICATION. HENCE, WE DISMISS THE SAME AS INFRUCTUOUS. 23. IN THE COMBINED RESULTS, THE APPEAL FILED BY TH E REVENUE AND THE CO FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 19 TH OCTOBER,2020 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- (MAHAVIR PRASAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ( WASEEM AHMED ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 19/10/2020 TANMAY, SR. PS TRUE COPY / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. !! ' # / CONCERNED CIT 4. ' # ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 5. &'() **+ , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD. 6. ),- ./ / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, & * //TRUE COPY// / ! ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) ! '# $, &' / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION 21.09.2020 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DI CTATING MEMBER 21.09.2020 3. OTHER MEMBER 4. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P.S. /P.S 05.10.2020 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DI CTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P.S ./P.S. 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 1 9 .10.2020 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK ... 9. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 10. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE OR DER