ESDS Software Solution Pvt. Ltd., Pune V. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax,

ITA 1529/PUN/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9123 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-07-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 23-11-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIVEK AGGARWAL
• Keywords: Business income
• Section: 143(3); 115JB; 10B

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B , PUNE , , BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM . / ITA NO. 15 29 /P U N/201 5 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 11 - 12 ESDS SOFTWARE SOLUTION PVT. LTD., MZSK & ASSOCIATES CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS LEVEL 3, BUSINESS BAY, PLOT NO.84, WELLESLEY ROAD, NEAR RTO, PUNE 411001 . / APPELLANT PA N: AABCE4981A VS. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, NASHIK . / RESPONDENT / APPELLANT BY : SHRI RAJIV THAKKAR / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI VIVEK AGGARWAL / DATE O F HEARING : 2 6 .0 7 . 2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 27 . 0 7 .201 7 / ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, J M : TH E APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT (A) - 1 , NASHIK , DATED 01.09.2015 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 11 - 12 AGAINST O RDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT , 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) . ITA NO. 15 29 /P U N/20 1 5 ESDS SOFTWARE SOLUTION PVT. LTD. 2 2 . THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL : - 1. ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES PREVAILING IN THE CASE AND AS PER PROVISIONS AND SCHEME OF THE ACT IT BE HELD T HAT, THE DISALLOWANCE / ADDITION OF RS. 1,21,07,917 / - MADE BY THE AO AND THAT CONFIRMED BY THE 1ST APPELLATE AUTHORITY BY REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 10B OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 IS UNWARRANTED, UNJUSTIFIED, CONTRARY TO THE PROVISI ONS OF THE ACT AND FACTS PREVAILING IN THE CASE. IT FURTHER BE HELD THAT NO DISALLOWANCE / ADDITION IS WARRANTED IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT. THE ADDITION/DISALLOWANCE SO MADE AND CONFIRMED BY THE ID. APPELLATE AUTHORITY BELOW BE DELETED. THE APPELLANT BE GRANTED JUST AND PROPER RELIEF IN THIS RESPECT. 2. ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES PREVAILING IN THE CASE AND AS PER PROVISIONS AND SCHEME OF THE ACT IT BE HELD THAT THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE A PPELLANT IS NOT BONAFIDE AND THEREFORE CANNOT BE ADMITTED. IT BE HELD THAT THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE APPELLANT DESERVES TO BE ADMITTED & ADJUDICATED UPON. JUST AND PROPER RELIEF BE GRANTED TO THE APPELLANT IN THIS RESPECT. 3. ASSUMING WITHOUT A DMITTING THAT THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S 10B IS NOT ALLOWABLE IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT, ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES PREVAILING IN THE CASE AND AS PER PROVISIONS & SCHEME OF THE ACT, IT BE HELD THAT THE LEARNED AO AND 1ST APPELLATE AUTHORITY ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING THE ALTERNATE CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S 10A OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 MADE BY THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT BE GRANTED JUST AND PROPER RELIEF IN THIS RESPECT. 3. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE OUTSET POINTED OUT THA T THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL IN APPROVA SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT IN ITA NO.1921/PUN/2014, RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11, ORDER DATED 25.01.2017 AND IN CREDIT POINTE SERVICES PVT. LTD. VS. DCI T IN ITA NO.111/PUN/2015, RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11, ORDER DATED 24.05.2017. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER STATED THAT ORIGINALLY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME HAD CLAIMED THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B O F THE ACT BUT THEREAFTER, DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAD MADE AN ALTERNATE PLEA UNDER SECTION 10A OF THE ACT WHICH WAS DENIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IN VIEW OF DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN GOETZE (INDIA) LTD. VS. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC). HE FURTHER STATED THAT THE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BEFORE THE CIT(A) WAS ALSO DISMISSED. HOWEVER, THE ISSUE OF ALTERNATE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER ITA NO. 15 29 /P U N/20 1 5 ESDS SOFTWARE SOLUTION PVT. LTD. 3 SECTION 10A OF THE ACT IS ALLOWED BY THE TRIBUNAL AND HENCE, THE SAME MERITS TO BE ALLOWED IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE. 4. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE ON THE OTHER HAND, POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO SATISFY AS TO WHETHER IT HAD FULFILLED THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN SECTION 10A OF THE ACT. HE PLACE D RELIANCE ON THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 5. BRIEFLY, IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF EXPORT OF COMPUTER SOFTWARE. THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED THE RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 1,81,15,615/ - WHICH WAS REVISED AT RS.1,81,15,615/ - AND BOOK PROFITS UNDER SECTION 115JB OF THE ACT AT RS.3,78,98,484/ - . THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B OF THE ACT AT RS.1,21,07,917/ - . THE CASE OF ASSESSEE WAS PICKED UP FOR SCRUTINY. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT HAVING CERTIFICATES FROM THE BOARD APPOINTED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT UNDER SECTION 14 OF THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & REGULATING ACT, 1951 (IDRA), WHICH WAS REQUIREMENT AS P ER EXPLANATION 2(IV) TO SECTION 10B OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY DEDUCTION CLAIMED UNDER SECTION 10B OF THE ACT SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED. THE ASSESSEE IN REPLY, PRODUCED THE COPY OF IT CERTIFICATE DATED 06.07.2009 FROM SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGIES PARKS OF INDIA. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT UNDER SECTION 10B OF THE ACT, APPROVAL OF EOU BY A BOARD APPOINTED IN THIS BEHALF UNDER THE IDRA AND THE RULES MADE THEREUNDER IS NECESSARY. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS PERMISSION FOR 100% E OU UNDER THE STPI SCHEME. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED ITS CASE BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FULFILLED THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B OF THE ACT, WHERE THE PROCEDURE FOR AN UNDERTAKING TO REGISTER UNDER TH E STPI ITA NO. 15 29 /P U N/20 1 5 ESDS SOFTWARE SOLUTION PVT. LTD. 4 SCHEME WAS DIFFERENT FROM THAT TO REGISTER AS PER EOU. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTES THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE A FRESH CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10A OF THE ACT AS AN ALTERNATE CLAIM, WHICH WAS DENI ED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IN VIEW OF SAID CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION BEING NOT MADE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, BEING NOT ENTERTAINABLE, AS PER THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN GOETZE (INDIA) LTD. VS. CIT (SUPRA). 6. THE CIT(A) ALSO DENIED THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL, AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 7. ON PERUSAL OF RECORD, WE FIND THAT SIMILAR ISSUE OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10A OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF 100% EOU APPROVED BY THE STPI VIS - - VIS CLAIM MADE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 10B OF THE ACT AROSE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN APPROVA SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT (SUPRA) AND IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: - 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE FIRS T ISSUE OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B/10A OF THE ACT AROSE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10. THE TRIBUNAL OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS 100% EOU REGISTERED WITH STPI AND WAS CLAIMING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B OF THE ACT FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003 - 04 ONWARDS AND THE SAME WAS BEING GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B OF THE ACT WAS DENIED TO THE ASSESSEE AS IT HAD OBTAINED APPROVAL FROM THE DIRECTOR AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE STPI AND NOT FROM THE DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO REJECTED THE ALTERNATE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10A OF THE ACT, SINCE NO SUCH CLAIM WAS MADE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AND THE PRESCRIBED REPORT OF AUDITOR WAS NOT FILED AT THE TIME OF F URNISHING THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE TRIBUNAL ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED REPORT OF ACCOUNTANT IN FORM 56F DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND HAD MADE THE ALTERNATE CLAIM UNDER SECTION 10A OF THE ACT. RELYING ON THE RATIO LAID DO WN BY THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. HEARTLAND KG INFORMATION LTD. (2013) 39 TAXMANN.COM 132 AND OTHER DECISIONS, THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10A OF THE ACT AND IN ORDER TO VERIF Y THE FULFILLMENT OF CONDITIONS PROVIDED IN SECTION 10A OF THE ACT, THE MATTER WAS SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER. THE RELEVANT PARAS 11 AND 11.4 OF THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL, WHICH READ AS UNDER: - 11. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY BOTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT(A) AND THE PAPER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE VARIOUS DECISIONS CITED BEFORE US. WE FIND THE BOPODI UNIT OF THE ITA NO. 15 29 /P U N/20 1 5 ESDS SOFTWARE SOLUTION PVT. LTD. 5 ASSESSEE IS REGISTERED WITH THE STPI AS A 100% EOU W.E.F., 20 - 05 - 2002. THE ASSESSEE WAS CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S.10B OF THE I.T. ACT FROM A.Y. 2003 - 04 ONWARDS AND THE SAME WAS BEING GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND DURING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR THE AO DISALLOWED THE DEDUCTION CLAIME D BY THE ASSESSEE U/S.10B OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT AN 100% EOU WITHIN THE MEANING OF CLAUSE (IV) OF EXPLANATION 2 TO SECTION 10B OF THE I.T. ACT SINCE IT HAS OBTAINED APPROVAL FROM THE DIRECTOR AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE STPI AND N OT FROM THE DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER. HE ALSO REJECTED THE ALTERNATE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.10A OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CLAIMED THE DEDUCTION U/S.10A, THROUGH FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME AND HAS NOT FURNISHED THE PRESCRIBED REPORT OF THE AUDITOR AT THE TIME OF FILING OF THE RETURN OF INCOME. IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION HERE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE REPORT OF THE ACCOUNTANT IN FORM NO.56F AND HAS MADE ALTERNATE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S .10A OF THE ACT IN CASE THE DEDUCTION IS NOT ALLOWED U/S.10B. WE FIND IN APPEAL THE LD.CIT(A) UPHELD THE 19 ACTION OF THE AO IN DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.10A OF THE I.T. ACT. 11.1 SO FAR AS THE ALTERNATE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IN CASE D EDUCTION U/S.10B IS NOT ALLOWED THEN HE SHOULD BE ALLOWED THE DEDUCTION U/S.10A, THE LD.CIT(A) REJECTED THE SAME ALSO HOLDING THAT THE UNIT OF THE ASSESSEE WILL NOT MEET THE FUNDAMENTAL CONDITION OF HAVING BEEN LOCATED IN FREE TRADE ZONE FOR CLAIMING THE D EDUCTION U/S.10A. FURTHER, ACCORDING TO HIM, THE AVAILABILITY OF THE DEDUCTION FROM ONE SECTION TO ANOTHER CANNOT BE SWITCHED SO EASILY BECAUSE OTHERWISE THE LEGISLATURE WOULD NOT HAVE PROVIDED 2 DIFFERENT SECTIONS IN THE FIRST PLACE. HE ACCORDINGLY REJECT ED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. 11.2 WE FIND A SOMEWHAT SIMILAR ISSUE HAD COME UP BEFORE THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. HEARTLAND KG INFORMATION LTD.(SUPRA). IN THAT CASE, THE ASSESSEE WAS AN INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING ENGAGED IN MEDICAL TRANSCRIPTION BUSINESS. THERE WAS ANOTHER UNDERTAKING K WHICH GOT APPROVAL AS 100% EOU FROM STPI AND STARTED ITS NEW BUSINESS OF MEDICAL TRANSCRIPTION DURING F.Y. 1999 - 2000. IT ALSO HAD ANOTHER UNDERTAKING ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF DEVELOPMENT OF SOFTWAR E EXPORTED OUTSIDE INDIA. IN RESPECT OF BUSINESS INCOME EARNED FROM EXPORT THE SAID UNDERTAKING CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S.10A OF THE I.T. ACT. IN JULY, 2001 THE COMPANY K TRANSFERRED ITS ENTIRE UNDERTAKING ENGAGED IN THE EXPORT BUSINESS OF MEDICAL TRANSCRIPTIO N ALONG WITH ALL TRANSCRIPTIONS, CONTRACTS, BOOKS, 20 RECORDS, ALL RIGHTS, ALL PERMITS, WARRANTIES INCLUDING COMPUTER SOFTWARE AND EXPORT OBLIGATION TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THE TRANSFER WAS RECOGNISED AND ALLOWED BY THE STPI. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTIO N U/S.10B IN RESPECT OF INCOME FROM EXPORT. HOWEVER, THE AO REJECTED THE CLAIM ON THE GROUND THAT APPROVAL OBTAINED FROM STPI FOR PURPOSE OF SECTION 10B WOULD NOT BE SUFFICIENT TO GRANT RELIEF. ACCORDING TO HIM, THE TRANSFER WAS ONLY RELATED TO MACHINERY A ND THUS THE CLAIM COULD NOT BE SUSTAINED. HE HOWEVER GRANTED DEDUCTION U/S.80HHE ON ALTERNATIVE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. IN APPEAL THE LD.CIT(A) REFERRING TO CDBT CIRCULAR FILE NO.15/5/63(IT)(A - 1) HELD THAT THE BENEFIT WITH THE VENDOR COMPANY IN RESPECT OF I NDIVIDUAL UNDERTAKING ENGAGED IN THE MANUFACTURE OF ARTICLES COULD BE CLAIMED BY SUCCESSOR COMPANY FOR THE REMAINING TAX HOLIDAY PERIOD SINCE THE ENTIRE UNDERTAKING OF THE BUSINESS OF MEDICAL TRANSCRIPTION WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE ASSESSEE. THUS, THE ASSESSE E WOULD BE ENTITLED TO HAVE THE BENEFIT U/S10A OF THE ACT FOR THE REMAINING PERIOD. HE THEREFORE HELD THAT RELIEF U/S.80HHE WOULD BE AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL AFFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). ON ITA NO. 15 29 /P U N/20 1 5 ESDS SOFTWARE SOLUTION PVT. LTD. 6 FURTHER APPEAL BY THE REVENUE, THE HON BLE HIGH COURT DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AND UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. WHILE DOING SO, THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT EVEN ASSUMING FOR A MOMENT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT REFERRED TO THE SECTION CORRECTLY, THE FACT REMAINS THAT I F THE CLAIM COULD BE FAVOURABLY CONSIDERED UNDER ANY OF THOSE SPECIAL DEDUCTION PROVISIONS AND ALL THE CONDITIONS SPECIFIED THEREIN BEING SATISFIED 21 THERE IS NO JUSTIFIABLE GROUND EXIST FOR THE REVENUE TO CONTEND THAT THE ASSESSEE SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED T O HAVE THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 10A OF THE I.T. ACT. 11.3 SINCE IN THE INSTANT CASE ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CLAIMED THE DEDUCTION U/S.10A OF THE ACT IN THE RETURN FILED U/S.139(1), HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED SUCH AN ALTERNATE DEDUCTION BEFORE THE AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ITSELF BY FILING THE REQUISITE REPORT OF THE ACCOUNTANT ALONG WITH FORM NO.56G. THEREFORE, IF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S.10B OF THE ACT BUT ELIGIBLE U/S.10A OF THE ACT, WE FIND NO REASON AS TO W HY SUCH BENEFIT SHOULD BE DENIED TO THE ASSESSEE. AFTER ALL THESE ARE INCENTIVE PROVISIONS AND ARE TO BE LIBERALLY CONSTRUED. IF THE ASSESSES OTHERWISE FULFILS ALL THE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS FOR CLAIMING THE DEDUCTION U/S.10A OF THE ACT BUT INADVERTENTLY CLAIM ED THE SAME U/S.10B OF THE ACT WHICH WAS GRANTED TO IT IN THE PAST, WE FIND NO REASON AS TO WHY THE ALTERNATE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT BE ACCEPTED. 11.4 HOWEVER, SINCE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT THOROUGHLY EXAMINED THE ALLOWABILITY OF DEDUCT ION U/S.10A OF THE ACT AND MERELY REJECTED THE CLAIM ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAME WAS NOT CLAIMED IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN FILED, THEREFORE, WE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE DEEM IT PROPER TO RESTORE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH A DIRECTION TO GIVE AN OP PORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS ELIGIBILITY FOR DEDUCTION U/S.10A OF THE I.T. ACT. WE HOLD AND DIRECT 22 ACCORDINGLY. SINCE WE ARE RESTORING THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR DECIDING THE ALTERNATE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION/S.10A, THEREFORE, WE REFRAIN OURSELVES FROM ADJUDICATING THE ALLOWABILITY OF DEDUCTION U/S.10B OF THE I.T. ACT. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 9. THE ISSUE WHICH ARISES BEFORE US IS IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE B EFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10. THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL BEFORE US IS ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 AND FOLLOWING THE SAME PARITY OF REASONING, WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B OF THE ACT. HOWEVE R, ELIGIBILITY OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10A OF THE ACT IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE MERITS TO BE VERIFIED. ACCORDINGLY, WE REMIT THIS ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE AND PASS ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND ALSO FOLLOWING THE DIRECTIONS OF TRIBUNAL IN EARLIER YEARS. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.2 AND 3 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 8. SIMILAR ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN CREDIT POINTE SERVICES PVT. LTD. VS. D CIT (SUPRA). 9. THE ISSUE ARISING IN THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE US IS IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN APPROVA SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT (SUPRA) AND CREDIT ITA NO. 15 29 /P U N/20 1 5 ESDS SOFTWARE SOLUTION PVT. LTD. 7 POINTE SERVICES PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT (SUPRA). FOLLOWING THE SAME PARITY OF REASONING, WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE CAN RAISE AN ALTERNATE PLEA OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10A OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, IN ORDER TO VERIFY WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS FULFILLED THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN SECTION 10A OF THE ACT, THE ISSUE IS SENT BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSE SSING OFFICER, WHO SHALL DECIDE THE SAME IN LINE WITH OUR DIRECTIONS IN APPROVA SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT (SUPRA) . THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE THUS, ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 1 0 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLO WED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 27 TH DAY OF JU LY , 201 7 . SD/ - SD/ - (ANIL CHATURVEDI ) (SUSHMA CHOWLA ) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE ; DATED : 27 TH JU LY , 201 7 . GCVSR / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPEL LANT ; 2. / THE RESPONDENT; 3. ( ) / THE CIT (A) - 1 , NASHIK ; 4. / THE PR. CIT - 1, NASHIK ; 5. , , / DR B , ITAT, PUNE; 6. / GUARD FILE . / BY ORDER , // TRUE COPY // / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE