ITO, New Delhi V. M/s. FIS Global Recovery Services India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 7065/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4457 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-09-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 30-12-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANONEET DALAL
• Keywords: Rule of consistency
• Section: 10

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES B : DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.NO.7065/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 ITO, VS. M/S. FIS GLOBAL R ECOVERY SERVICES WARD-9 (2) INDIA PVT. LTD. ROOM NO. 400-D, S-405(LGF), GREATER KAI LASH, PART-II, C.R. BUILDING, NEW DELHI-110 048 I.P. ESTATE, (PAN-AACCG0720A) NEW DELHI-110 001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ANSHU PRAKASH, SR. DR. REVENUE BY : SHRI MANONEET DALAL, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARI NG : 25.09.2017 DATE OF ORDER : 27.09.2017 ORDER PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THIS APPEAL BY REVENUE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-XIII, DELHI, DATED 09.10.2014 FOR A.Y. 2 010-2011. REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 2 ITA.NO. 7065/DEL/2014 ITO VS.FIS GLOBAL RECOVERY SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD. 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DIRECTING TO ALLOW THE DEDUCTIO N U/S 10A OF THE I.T. ACT AMOUNTING TO RS. 53,68,155/-. 2. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN IGNORING THE FINDINGS OF TH E A.O. THAT THE SERVICES RENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE THAT OF MAKI NG TELEPHONIC CALLS FOR DEBT AND MORTGAGE COLLECTION AND THUS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 10A OF THE I.T. ACT. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DIRECTING TO WORK OUT THE DEDUCTION U/S 10 A WITHOUT EXCLUDING THE TELECOMMUNICATION AND INSURANCE EXPEN SES FROM THE EXPORT TURNOVER. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR AMEND A NY GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED ABOVE AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 2. THE FIRST ISSUE RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN GROUND NO. 1 AND 2 IS THAT LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. FOR RS. 53,68,155/- ON ACCOUNT OF DEDUCTION U/S 10A OF THE ACT. 3. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE I S A PRIVATE LTD. COMPANY AND REGISTERED UNDER THE SOFTWARE TECHNOLOG Y PARKS OF INDIA (STPI), IN A SCHEME FORMULATED BY THE GOVT. OF INDI A. THE ASSESSEE DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS CLAIMED TO HAVE ENGAGED IN P ROVIDING BPO/ OUTSOURCING AND CALL CENTER SERVICES RELATED TO DEB T COLLECTIONS TO ITS HOLDING COMPANY M/S. CHEX SYSTEMS INC. USA. 3 ITA.NO. 7065/DEL/2014 ITO VS.FIS GLOBAL RECOVERY SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD. 4. THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAS CLAIMED A DEDUCTION OF RS. 53,68,155/- U/S 10A OF THE ACT. HO WEVER THE A.O. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OBSERVED THAT SIMILAR DE DUCTION WAS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AND 2009-10 WHICH WAS DISALLOWED. THE A.O. ACCORDINGLY FOLLOWING THE ORDE RS OF THE EARLIER YEARS HAS DISALLOWED THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSE E FOR RS. 53,68,155/- U/S 10A OF THE ACT. 5. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL TO LD . CIT(A) WHO HAS ALLOWED THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 1 0A OF THE ACT BY OBSERVING THAT SIMILAR DEDUCTION WAS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS I.E. 2006-07, 2007-08 AND 2008-09 WHICH WAS ALLOWED IN THESE YEARS. CONSIDERING THE DECISION OF THE EARLIE R YEARS LD. CIT(A) DIRECTED THE A.O. TO ALLOW THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 10A OF THE ACT. 6. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) REVEN UE IS IN 2 ND APPEAL BEFORE US. 4 ITA.NO. 7065/DEL/2014 ITO VS.FIS GLOBAL RECOVERY SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD. 7. BOTH LD. DR AND LD. AR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF AU THORITIES BELOW AS FAVORABLE TO THEM. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AT THE OUTSET IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THE IDENTICAL ISSUE CAME BEFORE THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL FOR THE ASSESSMEN T YEARS 2008-09 AND 2009-10 IN ITA NO. 1410 AND 4315 / DEL/2012 IN THE OWN CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WHERE THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL WAS PLEASED TO DECIDE THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE ORDER DATED 30 TH SEPTEMBER 2016. THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE ORDER IS REPRODUCED BELOW : - 4.3 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD INCLUDING THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES . WE FIND THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), HAS D ECIDED THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IN PARA-6.3 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER WITH FOLL OWING OBSERVATIONS: 6.3 DECISION I HAVE VERY CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FINDINGS RECOR DED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE DETAILED SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT. FURTHER, IN RESPECT OF THE FINDIN GS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND DISCUSSED ABOVE, THE FOLLOWIN G FACTS ARE OBSERVED: A. THE ACTIVITIES OF THE APPELLANT THOUGH HAVE BEEN DESCRIBED IN DIFFERENT WORDS AT THE PLACES IDENTIFIED I.E. FORM 3CEB, 3CD AND SUBMISSION DATED 21 OCTOBER, 14 ITA NOS. 1410 & 431 5/DEL/2012 AYS: 2008-09 & 2009-10 2010, HOWEVER, THE NATURE OF BUSINESS IS THE SAME. IN NUT-SHELL, THE CUSTOMERS OF CHEX SYSTE MS INC., SA (CSI) WHO ARE FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS IN USA REQUI RE DEBT COLLECTION SERVICES FOR THEIR US CLIENTS AND THE APPELLANT PRO VIDES SAID 5 ITA.NO. 7065/DEL/2014 ITO VS.FIS GLOBAL RECOVERY SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD. SERVICES. THE APPELLANT HAS RECONCILED THE NATURE O F ACTIVITIES CANDIDLY IN ITS SUBMISSION DATED 21 FEBRUARY 2012. THEREFORE, IN MY VIEW THERE IS NO INCONSISTENCY IN NATURE OF SERV ICES PROVIDED BY THE APPELLANT. THE SERVICES RENDERED BY THE APPELLA NT ARE IN THE NATURE OF OUTBOUND CALL CENTRE ACTIVITIES FOR MANAG ING ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLES AND RECOVERY FOR THE INTERNATIONAL CUST OMERS, OF CSI (WHO IS THE CUSTOMER OF THE APPELLANT). FURTHER, TH E ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER ON PAGE 8 HAS HIMSE LF STATED THAT APPELLANT IS ENGAGED IN THE PROVISION OF SERVICES I N THE SPHERE OF MANAGING ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE AND RECOVERY. THE ASSH SSING OFFICER FURTHER ADMITS THAT THE APPELLANT IS MAKING CALLS TO CSIS INTERNATIONAL CUSTOMERS, HOWEVER THE ASSESSING OFFI CER DISPUTES THAT THE APPELLANT WAS NOT USING ANY COMPU TER SOFTWARE IN THE PROCESS OF MAKING OUTBOND CALLS TO ITS CUSTOMER S, THEREFORE DEDUCTION U/S 10A WAS DISALLOWED. B. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT TH ERE IS NO APPLICATION OF ANY COMPUTER SOFTWARE WHATSOEVER NEI THER FOR DATA PROCESSING NOR FOR MAKING ANY SUCH COMPUTERIZED CAL LS IS NOT CORRECT. THE APPELLANT HAS DESCRIBED IN HIS SUBMISS ION REPRODUCED ABOVE WHEREIN IT HAS STATED THAT APPELLANT IS USING SOPHISTICATED SOFTWARE LIKE WEB APPLICATION CCC(E-ACCESS), AS400, TCS, PREDICTIVE DIALLER SOFTWARE, ETC. AT EACH AND EVERY PROCESS RIGHT FROM ACCESSING THE INFORMATION REGARDING DEBTORS ON A REAL-TIME BASIS, MAKING CALLS TO THE DEBTORS, UPDATING THE SY STEM REGARDING COLLECTION, TRANSMITTING THE INFORMATION TO THE CUS TOMERS ELECTRONICALLY, ETC. THE USE OF ALL THESE SOFTWARE IN THE BUSINESS PROCESS HAS BEEN ELABORATELY EXPLAINED BY THE APPEL LANT. THUS, IT MAKES CLEAR THAT APPELLANT IS USING COMPUTER SOFTWA RE ESPECIALLY THE PREDICTIVE DIALLER SOFTWARE WHICH AUTOMATICALLY DIALS THE 15 ITA NOS. 1410 & 4315/DEL/2012 AYS: 2008-09 & 2009-10 TE LEPHONE NUMBERS THAT HAVE BEEN UPLOADED ON CALL TABLES. THI S SOFTWARE HAS THE ABILITY TO RECOGNIZE A HUMAN VOICE AND THEN TRA NSFER THE PHONE CALL TO ANY AVAILABLE PERSONNEL IN THE CALL CENTER OF THE APPELLANT. THE SAID PERSONNEL THEN RESPONDS TO THE CALL BEING DIALED AUTOMATICALLY BY THE PREDICTIVE DIALLER SOFTWARE WH ICH IS TRANSFERRED AUTOMATICALLY TO THE SAID PERSON. THE PREDICTIVE DI ALLER SOFTWAREHAS A WEB APPLICATION INTERFACE FOR THE PERSONNEL TO LO G-IN AND START RECEIVING CALLS. THUS, IT IS CLEAR THAT NO MANUAL D IALING IS BEING MADE BY THE APPELLANT AND THE CALLS ARE BEING DIALE D BY THE PREDICTIVE DIALLER SOFTWARE WITHOUT ANY HUMAN INTER VENTION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS ORDER AT PAGE NO. 8 HAS HI MSELF STATED THAT THE APPELLANT USES COMPUTERS SYSTEMS CONNECTED THROUGH 6 ITA.NO. 7065/DEL/2014 ITO VS.FIS GLOBAL RECOVERY SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD. DEDICATED INTERNET LINES. IT IS A KNOWN FACT THAT T HE COMPUTER SYSTEM INCLUDES A COMPLETE UNIT ALONG WITH THE HARD WARE, SOFTWARE AND OTHER PERIPHERAL DEVICES THAT ARE NECESSARY TO MAKE THE COMPUTER FUNCTION. COMPUTER SOFTWARE IS AN ESSENTIA L ELEMENT IN A COMPUTER SYSTEM SO THAT THE COMPUTER PERFORMS THE D ESIRED FUNCTIONS IN THE DESIRED MANNER. WITHOUT COMPUTER S OFTWARE, THE HARDWARE CANNOT FUNCTION ON ITS OWN. A COMMON EXAMP LE WOULD BE MICROSOFT WINDOWS SOFTWARE WHICH IS USED FOR RUNNIN G PERSONNEL COMPUTERS WITHOUT WHICH THE COMPUTER HARDWARE WHICH IS A CPU, MONITOR, KEYBOARD, ETC. WILL NOT BE ABLE TO FUNCTIO N. IT IS A MATTER OF RECORD THAT COMPUTERS INCLUDING NETWORKING EQUIPMEN TS COMPRISE OF MORE THAN 50% OF THE TOTAL ASSETS OF THE APPELLAN T. IT IS ALSO AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE APPELLANT DOES NOT HAVE AN Y ISD FACILITY AND THE DETAILS OF TELECOMMUNICATION EXPENSES ARE O N RECORD. ALL THE CALLS ARE MADE USING THE PREDICTIVE DIALER SOFT WARE USING THE INTERNET FACILITY. THUS, THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSE SSING OFFICER THAT NO SOFTWARE IS USED BY THE APPELLANT IS NOT BA SED ON THE PROPER APPRECIATION OF THE WORKING OF OUTBOND CALL CENTERS. HENCE I DO NOT AGREE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER. C. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO MENTIONED THAT T HERE IS NO CUSTOMIZED ELECTRONIC LATA WHICH IS BEING PREPARED AND SENT TO THE CUSTOMER AND THUS, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE APPEL LANT IS USING COMPUTER SOFTWARE FOR HIS BUSINESS ACTIVITIES TO MA KE HIM ELIGIBLE TO DEDUCTION U/S 10A. TO THIS ALSO I DO NOT AGREE WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. SINCE THE APPELLANT HAS B EEN USING SOPHISTICATED SOFTWARE IN CARRYING OUT ITS BUSINESS ACTIVITIES AND THE SAME IS DISCUSSED IN DETAIL ABOVE. IT HAS BEEN OBSE RVED THAT AFTER THE CALL, THE PERSONALS OF THE APPELLANT COLLECT IN PUTS OF THE RELEVANT INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM THE DEBTOR OF THE US FINA NCIAL INSTITUTIONS IN THE REAL-TIME SYSTEM AND THEN TRANS MIT THE SAME TO THE CUSTOMERS OUTSIDE INDIA ELECTRONICALLY USING TH E INTERNET SYSTEM. THUS, CUSTOMIZED DATA ARE BEING TRANSMITTED ELECTRONICALLY TO THE CUSTOMER OF THE APPELLANT. IN THIS REGARD TH E REFERENCE CAN BE MADE TO THE DECISION OF HONBLE ITAT CHENNAI IN THE CASE OF ITO V. ACCURUM INDIA (?.) LTD. [2010] 126 IT'D 69 (CHEN NAI) (TM) WHEREIN IT HAS MADE IMPORTANT OBSERVATION IN RESPEC T OF CUSTOMIZED ELECTRONIC DATA AS UNDER: THE REQUIREMENT OF THE PROVISION IS THAT THER E SHOULD BE A CUSTOMIZED ELECTRONIC DATA AND SUCH DAT A SHOULD BE EXPORTED OUTSIDE INDIA THE DATA WHICH A CUSTOMER MAY REQUIRE, MAY BE GATHERED EITHER BY MANUAL EFFORT OR BY ELECTRONIC MEANS, AS FOR EXAMPLE, THROUGH INTERNET. BY 7 ITA.NO. 7065/DEL/2014 ITO VS.FIS GLOBAL RECOVERY SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD. WHATEVER MEANS THE DATA IS COLLECTED, ONCE IT IS ST ORED IN AN ELECTRONIC FORM, IT BECOMES A CUSTOMIZED ELECTRONIC DATA WHICH CAN BE EXPORTED TO QUALIFY FOR DEDUCTION UNDE R SECTION 10A. THE PROCESS OF ACTUALLY COLLECTING THE DATA NE ED NOT BE IT ENABLED. WHAT ALL IS REQUIRED THAT THE DATA COLL ECTED SHOULD BE IN AN ELECTRONIC FORM. IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT THERE IS NO DISPUTE TH AT THERE IS A CALL CENTRE ENGAGED IN MANAGING ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLES AND RECOVE RY, THE CALLS ARE MADE BY THE PREDICTIVE DIALER SOFTWARE AND AFTER TH E CALL, THE INPUTS OF THE RELEVANT INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM THE DEBTOR OF TH E US FINANCIAL INSTITUTION IN MADE IN THE REAL-TIME SYSTEM WHICH I S TRANSMITTED TO THE CUSTOMER OUTSIDE INDIA ELECTRONICALLY USING THE INT ERNET SYSTEM. THUS, THE REQUIREMENT OF A CUSTOMIZED ELECTRONIC DATA BEING T RANSMITTED OUTSIDE INDIA ELECTRONICALLY STANDS FULFILLED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO MENTIONED THAT APPEL LANT IS JUST USING THE INTERNET LINES INSTEAD OF THE TRADITIONAL TELEP HONE LINES FOR MAKING CALLS TO THE INTERNATIONAL CUSTOMERS, THE OBSERVATION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ARE NOT CORRECT IN VIEW OF THE DETAILED DIS CUSSION MADE ABOUT THE WORKING OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY. THE APPELLANT IS NOT DIALING ANY CALLS MANUALLY. THE CALLS ARE BEING DIALED BY THE PREDICT IVE DIALLER SOFTWARE AUTOMATICALLY. THE BUSINESS ACTIVITY OF THE APPELLA NT I.E. CALL CENTRE IS SPECIFICALLY COVERED UNDER THE DEFINITION OF COMPUT ER SOFTWARE IN TERMS OF CLAUSE (B) OF ITEM (I) OF EXPLANATION 2 TO SECTION 10A OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 READ WITH NOTIFICATION NO. SO 890(E) DATED 26 SEPTE MBER 2000 ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES. CONSIDERING THE BUSINESS MODULE OF THE APPELLANT, I T IS SEEN THAT APPELLANT IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 10A OF THE IT ACT. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 10A OF THE APPELLANT WAS ACCEPTED IN THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR(S) 2006-07 AND 2007-08 AND NO ADVER SE INFERENCE DRAWN ABOUT THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S 10A OF THE IN COME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'THE ACT') IN THOSE YEA R. THE ONLY DISALLOWANCE IN THOSE TWO EARLIER YEARS WAS IN RESPECT OF RESTRI CTING THE DEDUCTION U/S 10A ON THE AMOUNT OF EXPORT TURNOVER CALCULATED AFT ER EXCLUDING COMMUNICATION AND INSURANCE EXPENSES. THE SAID DISA LLOWANCE HAS ALSO BEEN DELETED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN BOTH THE ASSE SSMENT YEARS AND THE APPEAL ORDER PASSED IN BOTH THE EARLIER YEARS ALLOW ING THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN PLACED ON RECORD BEFORE ME. IT I S ALSO SEEN THAT THE NATURE OF BUSINESS ACTIVITIES OF THE APPELLANT REMA INS THE SAME IN THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL AS WELL AS IN THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT Y EARS I.E. 2006-07 AND 8 ITA.NO. 7065/DEL/2014 ITO VS.FIS GLOBAL RECOVERY SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD. 2007-08. THUS, THE APPELLANT IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCT ION U/S 10A OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW DEDUCTIO N 18 ITA NOS. 1410 & 4315/DEL/2012 AYS: 2008-09 & 2009-10 UNDER SECTIO N 10A OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 TO THE APPELLANT. 4.4 ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER THERE IS NO APPLICATION OF ANY COMPUTER SOFTWARE EITHER FOR THE DATA PROCESSING OR FOR MAKING COMPUTERIZED CALLS. BUT THIS CONTENTION OF THE ASSE SSING OFFICER IS NOT FOUND TO BE CORRECT AS ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN USE OF SO PHISTICATED SOFTWARE LIKE WEB APPLICATION CCC (E-ACCESS), AS400, AND PAR TICULARLY PREDICTIVE DIALER SOFTWARE FOR MAKING OUTBOUND CALLS. THE LEA RNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE HAS FURTHER EXPLAINED THAT THE PRED ICTIVE DIALER SOFTWARE HAS A WEB APPLICATION INTERFACE FOR THE PERSONAL LO GIN AND START RECEIVING CALLS AND THUS WE FIND THAT THE CALL DIALING IS NOT DONE MANUALLY AND CALLS ARE BEING DIALED BY THE PREDICTIVE DIALER SOFTWARE USING INTERNET FACILITY. 4.5 WE FIND THAT CALL CENTRE ACTIVITY IS SPECIFICAL LY COVERED UNDER THE DEFINITION OF COMPUTER SOFTWARE IN TERMS OF CLAUSE (B) OF ITEM (I) OF EXPLANATION-2 TO SECTION 10A OF THE ACT READ WITH N OTIFICATION NUMBER SO 890 (E) DATED 26/09/2000 ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL BOAR D OF DIRECT TAXES. BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISPUTED WHETHER THE ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE CAN BE CALLED AS CALL CENTRE. FROM THE FAC TS ELABORATED BY THE ASSESSEE THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT IT IS A CALL CENT RE ENGAGED IN MANAGING ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE AND RECOVERY. THE CALLS ARE MAD E BY THE PREDICTIVE DIALER SOFTWARE AND AFTER THE CALL THE INPUTS OF T HE RELEVANT INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM THE DATA OF THE US FINANCIAL INSTITUT ION IS MADE IN REAL-TIME SYSTEM WHICH IS TRANSMITTED TO THE CUSTOMER OUTSIDE INDIA ELECTRONICALLY USING THE INTERNET 19 ITA NOS. 1410 & 4315/DEL/2012 AYS: 2008-09 & 2009-10 SYSTEM. IN VIEW OF THE EXPLANATION OF THE A SSESSEE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT CUSTOMIZED ELECTRONIC DATA IS BEING TRANSMITTE D OUTSIDE INDIA ELECTRONICALLY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO MENT IONED THAT ASSESSEE IS USING INTERNET LINES FOR TELEPHONE CALLS TO ITS INT ERNATIONAL CUSTOMER RATHER THAN TRADITIONAL TELEPHONE LINES. THIS OBSERVATION ALSO SUPPORTS THAT ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE ARE IN THE NATURE OF CAL L CENTRE AND THEREFORE IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FO R DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10A OF THE ACT. IN PRIOR ASSESSMENT YEARS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND DEDUCTIO NS HAVE BEEN ALLOWED. IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THE BUSINESS ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE, THUS, IN OUR VIE W, THE PRINCIPLE OF CONSISTENCY ALSO DEMAND THAT THIS DEDUCTION SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE FIND THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) ON THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE, IS WELL REASONED AND NO INTERFERENCE ON OUR PART IS REQUIRE D. ACCORDINGLY, WE UPHOLD THE SAME. THE GROUNDS NO. 1 AND 2 OF THE APP EAL ARE DISMISSED. 9 ITA.NO. 7065/DEL/2014 ITO VS.FIS GLOBAL RECOVERY SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD. 9. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT A PPEAL EXACTLY IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE EARLIER YEARS AS DISCUSS ED ABOVE. THE LD. DR HAS ALSO NOT BROUGHT ANYTHING CONTRARY TO THE FINDING O F LD. CIT-A. THEREFORE WE HAVE NO ALTERNATE EXCEPT TO CONFIRM THE ORDER OF LD. CIT-A. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL FOR THE A SSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 AND 2009-10 IN ITA NO. 1410 AND 4315 / DEL/2012 IN THE OWN CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASONS TO INTERFERE I N THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). HENCE THE ISSUE RAISED BY REVENUE IS DISMIS SED. SECOND ISSUE 10. THE SECOND ISSUE RAISED BY REVENUE IN THIS APPE AL IS THAT LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE A.O. TO WORK OUT THE DEDUCTI ON U/S 10A OF THE ACT WITHOUT EXCLUDING THE TURNOVER OF TELECOMMUNICATION AND INSURANCE EXPENSES FOR THE PURPOSE DEDUCTION U/S 10A OF THE A CT. THE AO DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WORKED OUT THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10A OF THE ACT WITHOUT EXCLUDING THE AMOUNT OF TELECOMMUNICATION AND INSURANCE EXPENSES. 11. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFO RE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER : 10 ITA.NO. 7065/DEL/2014 ITO VS.FIS GLOBAL RECOVERY SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD. AS THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL IN THE YEAR UNDER APPEA L AS WELL AS IN THE EARLIER AY(S) 2006-07, 2007-08 AND 2008-09, THE REFORE I AM IN AGREEMENT WITH THE VIEWS OF THE CIT(APPEALS)- V, NEW DELHI AND ASSESSING OFFICER IS THEREFORE DIRECTED T O ALLOW DEDUCTION U/S 10A OF THE I.T. ACT WITHOUT EXCLUDIN G THE TELECOMMUNICATION AND INSURANCE EXPENSES FROM EXPOR T TURNOVER. THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN THIS YEAR ARE IDENTICAL AN D I TEND TO AGREE WITH THE FINDINGS GIVEN BY MY PREDECESSOR IN THE APPELLATE ORDER FOR THE A.Y. 2009-10. IN VIEW OF TH E ABOVE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 10A OF THE ACT WITHOUT EXCLUDING THE COMMUNICATION AND INSURANCE EXPENSES FROM THE EXPORT TURNOVER AND MOD IFY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 12. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) REVE NUE IS IN SECOND APPEAL BEFORE US. 13. BEFORE US BOTH LD. AR AND LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AS FAVORABLE TO THEM. 14. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORDS. AT THE OUTSET IT WAS OBSERVED THAT SIMILAR ISSUE CAME UP FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL I N THE OWN CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 1410-4315/DEL/2012 FOR THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AND 2009-10 WHEREIN THIS TRIBUNAL WAS PLEASED TO DE CIDE THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE VIDE ORDER DATED 30 TH SEPTEMBER, 2016. THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE ORDER IS REPRODUCED BELOW :- 11 ITA.NO. 7065/DEL/2014 ITO VS.FIS GLOBAL RECOVERY SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD. 5.4 FROM THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS, WE FIND THAT IN T HE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, THE EXPENSES ON COMMUNICATION AND INSURAN CE HAVE NOT BEEN INCURRED IN FOREIGN EXCHANGE AND ALSO NOT INCLUDED IN THE INVOICES ISSUED TO THE FOREIGN CUSTOMER. APROPOS THE ABOVE DISCUSSI ON, SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CHANGED THE EXPENSES ON TELECOMMUNICATION A ND INSURANCE FROM ITS CUSTOMERS, THE SAME ARE NOT REQUIRED TO BE EXCL UDED WHILE COMPUTING THE EXPORT TURNOVER FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING DEDUCTION U/S 10A OF THE ACT. ONCE, THE TELECOMMUNICATION INSURANCE EXP ENSES ARE NOT PART OF EXPORT TURNOVER, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THERE I S NO REASON FOR REDUCING THE EXPENSES INCURRED ON COMMUNICATION AND INSURANC E FROM THE EXPORT TURNOVER FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF DEDUCTIO N UNDER SECTION 10A OF THE ACT. WE FIND THAT ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ON THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS WELL REASONED AND NO INTERFERENCE ON OUR PART IS REQUIRED. ACCORDINGLY, WE UPHOLD THE SA ME. THE GROUND NO. 3 OF THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 15. AS THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS EXACTLY IDENTICAL WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN DECIDED BY THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITS OWN CASE IN ITA NO. 1410-4315/DEL/2012 (SUPRA) . THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) HENCE THIS APPEAL OF REVENU E IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27/9/2017. SD/- SD/- (AMIT SHUKLA) (WASEEM AHMED) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED :27.9.2017 COPY TO 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) CONCERNED 12 ITA.NO. 7065/DEL/2014 ITO VS.FIS GLOBAL RECOVERY SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD. 4. CIT CONCERNED 5. D.R. ITAT B BENCH, DELHI 6. GUARD FILE.