ITO, Bangalore V. Sri. Narendra Reddy Thappetta, Bangalore

ITA 605/BANG/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 95160 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 13-04-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S V RAVISHANKAR

Judgement Text

ITA.605/BANG/2015 PAGE - 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH 'A', BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. N. V. VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI. ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A NO.605/BANG/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11) INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD -4(3(3), BANGALORE ..APPELLANT V. SHRI. NARENDRA REDDY THAPPETTA, NO.158, PHASE ONE, ADARSH PALM MEADOWS, WHITEFIELD ROAD, RAMAGONDANAHALLI, BANGALORE 560 066 ..RESPONDENT PAN : ACKPT2378J ASSESSEE BY : SHRI. S. V. RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : SMT. NANDINI DAS, JCIT HEARD ON : 03.08.2015 PRONOUNCED ON : .08.2015 O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : IN THIS APPEAL FILED BY REVENUE ITS GRIEVANCE IS T HAT CIT (A) HELD THE ASSESSEE TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S.10A OF TH E INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT IN SHORT). 02. WHEN THE MATTER CAME UP BEFORE US, LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE OF DEDUCTION U/S.10A OF TH E ACT HAD COME UP ITA.605/BANG/2015 PAGE - 2 BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A. YS. 2006-07 AND 2006- 07. AS PER THE LD. AR, THIS TRIBUNAL HAD UPHELD TH E ORDER OF CIT (A) WHEREBY IT WAS GIVEN DEDUCTION U/S.10A OF THE ACT. LD. AR POINTED OUT THAT FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMET YEAR ALSO, CIT (A) HAD FOLLOWED HIS OWN DECISION FOR A. YS. 2006-07 AND 2006-07. 03. LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION U/S.10A OF THE ACT SINCE IT WAS SIMPLY PROVIDING LE GAL SERVICES TO ITS CLIENTS AND NOT DOING ANY TYPE OF BUSINESS MENTIONED IN SEC TION 10A OF THE ACT. 04. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS AND HEARD THE CONTEN TIONS. WE FIND THAT CIT (A) HAD RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA.1550/BANG/2010, DT.03.01.2014. RELEVANT OBS ERVATIONS ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER : ON QUESTION WHETHER THE NATURE OF SERVICES RENDERE D BY THE ASSESSEE FELL WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF COMPUTER SOFTWARE AS THE DEFINITION OF THE TERM AS GIVEN IN SECT.10A AND 80HHE OF THE ACT, WE FIND THAT THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE BOARD IN NOTIFICATION NO.SO 890(E) DATED 26.09.2000 IS CLEARLY APPLICABLE TO THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE SERVICES RENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE CAN BE CATEGORISE D AS PER THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE BOARD AS BANK OFFICE OPE RATIONS, DATA PROCESSING, LEGAL DATABASES OR EVEN UNDER REMOTE MA INTENANCE AND THE SAME IS TERMED AS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ENABLE D PRODUCTS OR SERVICES. THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF DATA PROCESSING FOR LEGAL MATTERS LIKE MAKING PATENT APPLICATIONS, ETC. THE WORK DONE BY THE APPELLANT WILL COME CLEARLY UNDER THE CATEGORY OF D ATA PROCESSING BACK OFFICE OPERATION, LEGAL DATA BASE AND REMOTE MAINTE NANCE. THUS IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THE COORDINATE BENCH THAT THE SERVICES RENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE FALLS UNDER THE DEFINITION OF COMPUTER SOFTWARE AND IT WAS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S.10A OF THE ACT. NOTHING WAS BROUGHT BY THE ITA.605/BANG/2015 PAGE - 3 DEPARTMENT TO WARRANT A DIFFERENT VIEW FOR THE PRES ENT ASSESSMENT YEAR. ASSESSEE WAS CARRYING ON THE SAME BUSINESS. WE ARE THEREFORE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A). 05. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 7TH DAY OF AU GUST, 2015. SD/- SD/- (N. V. VASUDEVAN) (ABRAHAM P GEO RGE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MCN COPY TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE ASSESSING OFFICER 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) 5. DR 6. GF, ITAT, BANGALORE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR