DCIT, CIRCLE-12(2), NEW DELHI V. INTERGLOBE TECHNOLOGY QUOTIENT PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 6522/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1899 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-12-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 30-10-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Services rendered outside India
• Section: 115JB; 13; 22; 10

Judgement Text

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH C : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHR I AMIT SHUKLA , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) ITA NO. 6522 /DEL/201 7 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012 - 13 ) THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 12 (2) NEW DELHI VS. INTERGLOBE TECHNOLOGY QUOTIENT PRIVATE LIMITED GROUND FLOOR, 124, CENTRAL BEING, AROUSE, JAN PATH, NEW DELHI PAN AABCI3241H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ROHIT JAIN, ADV SHRI ADITYA VOHRA ADV SHRI ARPIT GARG ADV REVENUE BY: SHRI GAURAV DUDEJA SENIOR DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE DATE OF HEARING 07/12/202 0 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 07 /12/2020 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE LEARNED DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE 12 (2), NEW DELHI (THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER/AO) AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 4, NEW DELHI DATED 31 ST OF AUGUST 2017 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012 13 RAISING FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - I. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT A HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF 482,271,669/ TOWARDS DEDUCTION U/S 10 AA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT OF THOUGH ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUCH CLAIM. II. THE LEARNED CIT A HAS ERRED IN NOT EXAMINING THE FACT WHETHER OR NOT THE ASSESSEE SAID TO BE ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF SOFTWARE EXPORT TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 10 AA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT AND PROVID ING INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ENABLED SERVICES IN THE SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE UNIT APPROVED UNDER SEZS SCHEME FOR DATA PROCESSING SERVICES. 3. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 26/9/2012 SHOWING THE TOTAL INCOME OF 483,657,670. THE ASSESSEE ALSO DECLAR ED BOOK PROFIT U/S 115JB OF 893,358,475/ . THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S 10 AA OF 482,271,669 WAS EXAMINED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER WHEREIN ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT IT IS ENGAGED IN THE FIELD OF EXPORT OF DATA PROCESSING SERVICES AND THUS I T IS IN THE 6 TH YEAR OF CLAIM U/S 10 AA. 4. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ALREADY DISALLOWED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 08, 2008 09, 2009 10, 2000 11 AND 2011 12. THE REASON FOR DISALLOWANCE IS THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED IN THESE YEARS. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE FACTS STATED IN THAT YEAR IS ALSO APPLICABLE FOR THIS YEAR TOO. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT ASSESSEE IS JUST EARNING A COMMISSION FROM A FOREIGN COMPANY AND SUCH COMMISSION HAS BEEN GIVEN THE COLOUR OF EXPORTS BEING PROVIDED FROM AN ASSESSEE SEZ UNIT SO AS TO CLAIM 100% DEDUCTION OF THE PROFITS U/S 10 AA OF THE. THEREFORE ACCORDING TO HIM AS THE ASSESSEE COMPANY DID NOT FULFILL THE CRITERIA FOR CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S 10 AA, THE SAME WAS DENIED TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AS IN THE LAST ASSESSMENT ORDERS. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE SAME SHOULD NOT BE FOLLOWED. 5. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE SIMILAR KIND OF SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT AND PROVIDING INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ENABLED SERVICES NAMELY DATA PROCESSING AND ITS EXPORTS FROM ITS SEZS UNIT LOCATED AT NOIDA. ASSESSEE COMPANY CONTINUES TO PROVIDE SERVICE TO GALILEO NETHERLAND BV. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT IT FULFILS ALL THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN U/S 10 AA OF THE ACT AND IT IS ALSO BEEN GRANTED APPROVAL BY THE DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER , NOIDA SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE AND THE ENTIRE CONSIDERATION TOWARDS THE EXPORT OF SERVICES BEEN REALIZED IN FOREIGN CURRENCY AND THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 10 A A HAS ALSO C ERTIFIED BY THE REPORT IN FORM NUMBER 56F. 6. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE , IN VIEW OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED IN THE EARLIER YEARS , DISALLOWED THE DEDUCTION U/S 10 AA OF THE ACT OF 482,27 1,669/ AND PAS SED AN ASSESSMENT ORDER ASSESSING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT 965,929,338/ AGAINST THE RETURNED INCOME AT 483,657,669 U/S 143 (3) OF THE ACT ON 25 TH OF MARCH 2015. 7. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED WITH THAT ORDER AND PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT A. THE LEARNED CIT A FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH WHEREIN THE IDENTICAL ADDITION MADE IN THE HENCE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 08 TO 2000 11 WAS DELETED . THE LEARNED CIT A FURTHER NOTED IN PARAGRAPH NUMBER 7.3 OF HIS ORDER THAT THE ORDER OF THE COORDINATE BENCH HAS ALSO BEEN UPHELD BY THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT IN CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NUMBER 330/2017 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000 11 DATED 22 MAY 2017. THEREFORE, BASED ON THESE ORDERS, THE LEARNED AND CIT A DIRECTED THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 10 AA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT A HAS PREFERRED THIS APPEAL. 8. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER WHEREAS THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE ORDER OF THE HONOURA BLE HIGH COURT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 11 WHICH HAS BEEN FOLLOWED BY THE LEARNED CIT A AND THEREFORE THE APPEAL OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER DESERVES TO BE DISMISSED. 9. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTION AND PE RUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. AS THE FACT SHOWS FROM THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT A THAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000 11 THE COORDINATE BENCH HAS DELETED THE ABOVE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER , THE ORDER OF THE COORDINATE BENCH HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE COULD NOT SHOW US ANY CHANGE IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THEREFORE WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT A IN DELETING THE ABOVE DISALLOWANCE. IN THE RESULT WE DISMISS GROUND NUMBER 1 2 OF THE APPEAL OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER. 10. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER IS DISMISSED. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TI ME OF HEARING ON 7 - 12 - 2020. - SD/ - - SD/ - ( AMIT SHUKLA ) (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 07 /1 2 /2020 A K KEOT COPY FORWARDED TO 1. APPLICANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI