Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalore V. M/s Citrix R & D India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore

ITA 99/BANG/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4699 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-06-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 16-01-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P K PRASAD DR P V PRAD
• Keywords: Question of law
• Section: 43B

Judgement Text

ITA.99/BANG/2017 & CO.75/BANG/2017 PAGE - 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENGALURU BENCH 'C', BENGALURU BEFORE SHRI. A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A NO.99/BANG/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09) ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -2(1)(11), BENGALURU .. APPELLANT V. M/S. CITRIX R & D INDIA P. LTD, NO.33, PRESTIGE DYNASTY, NEXT TO HCL, ULSOOR ROAD, BEGALURU 560 042 .. RESPONDENT PAN : AABCN3639C CROSS OBJECTION NO.75/BANG/2017 (IN I.T.A NO.99/BANG/2017) (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09) (BY THE ASSESSEE) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI. P. K. PRASAD, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : DR. P. V. PRADEEP KUMAR, ADDL. CIT HEARD ON : 23.05.2018 PRONOUNCED ON : 01.06.2018 O R D E R PER LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THESE ARE APPEAL AND CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE REVENUE AND THE ASSESSEE RESPECTIVELY, AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A), BENGALURU -2, BENGALURU, DT.10.08.2016, FOR THE A. Y. 2008-09. ITA.99/BANG/2017 & CO.75/BANG/2017 PAGE - 2 THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE AS UNDER : THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS CROSS OBJ ECTION ARE AS UNDER : ITA.99/BANG/2017 & CO.75/BANG/2017 PAGE - 3 REVENUES APPEAL : 02. GROUNDS 1, 3 AND 4 RAISED BY THE REVENUE PERTAI NS TO THE ISSUE OF PAY AND PAYABLE, AS IS CLEAR FROM THE GROUNDS WH ICH PERTAIN TO THE DISALLOWANCE U/S.40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. 03. THE LD. DR HAS PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE ORDER P ASSED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 04. THE LD. AR APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE REVENUE SHOULD NOT BE AGGRIEVED BY THE ORD ER PASSED BY THE CIT (A), AS THE CIT (A) HAS DISALLOWED THE EXPENDIT URE U/S.40(A)(I) OF THE ACT AND THEREFORE THE ISSUE OF PAY AND PAYAB LE, DOES NOT ARISE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL. 05. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. AS CORRECTLY POINTED OUT BY THE LD. AR, THE ISSUE O F PAY AND PAYABLE DOES NOT ARISE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL AS THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE DISALLOWED U/S.40(A)(I). WE AGREE WITH THE L OWER AUTHORITIES AND DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ON THIS ISSUE . 06. IN RESPECT OF GROUND 2 OF THE REVENUE, IT WAS S UBMITTED BY THE LD. DR THAT THE CIT (A) RELYING UPON THE JUDGMENT O F THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CIT V. GEM PLUS JEWELLERY INDI A LTD [(2010) 194 TAXMAN 192], HAS DIRECTED THE AO TO REC OMPUTED THE DEDUCTION U/S.10A OF THE ACT. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. DR THAT THE CIT (A) HAS NOT DECIDED THE ISSUE CONCLUSIVELY AND HAD ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO RECOMPUTE THE DEDUCTION U/S.10A . ITA.99/BANG/2017 & CO.75/BANG/2017 PAGE - 4 07. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. AR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT (A) HAS DIRECTED THE AO TO RECOMPUTE THE DEDUCTION U/S. 10A OF THE ACT, ONLY AFTER RELYING UPON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE MATTER OF GEM PLUS JEWELLERY INDIA LTD (SUPRA). HENCE THERE WAS NO LACUNA IN THE DIRECTION OF THE CIT (A) . 08. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL. THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE US IS, WHET HER THE CIT (A) WAS CORRECT IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUN T OF DISALLOWANCE U/S.40(A)(IA), RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE MATTER OF GEM PLUS JEWELLE RY INDIA LTD (SUPRA), AS IT DOES NOT HAVE THE JUDICIAL PRECEDENC E VALUE FOR THE CIT (A) AT BENGALURU. 09. THE CORE ISSUE EMERGING FROM GROUND NO.3 WAS WH ETHER THE JUDGMENT RENDERED BY THE NON-JURISDICTIONAL HIGH CO URT BINDS THE REVENUE OR NOT. FIRSTLY, WE MAY LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT THE ISSUE OF ENHANCEMENT OF PROFIT RESULTING ON ACCOUNT OF DISAL LOWANCE U/S.40(A)(I) U/S.10A HAD ALREADY BEEN SETTLED BY TH E COORDINATE BENCH IN THE MATTER OF CERNER HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS P. LTD [(2017) 83 TAXMANN.COM 62], WHICH WE WILL REFER HEREIN BELO W. SECONDLY, THE CONTENTION RAISED BY WAY OF THE PRESENT GROUND IS THAT THE JUDGMENT IN GEM PLUS JEWELLERY LTD (SUPRA) IS NOT B INDING ON THE CIT (A), BASED IN BENGALURU. IN OUR VIEW, THE REVE NUE IS NOT PERMITTED TO TAKE THIS GROUND OF JURISDICTIONAL OR NON-JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE. IN THE CONSIDERED OPINION OF THE BENCH, THI S ISSUE IS NO MORE RES INTEGRA AND IS SETTLED BY A CATENA OF JUDGMENTS . FOR THIS ITA.99/BANG/2017 & CO.75/BANG/2017 PAGE - 5 PROPOSITION WE RELY UPON ACIT V. AURANGABAD HOLIDA Y RESORTS (P.) LTD. [118 ITD 1], WHEREIN THE COORDINATE BENCH HELD AS UNDER : 5. AS OBSERVED BY A CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNA L, IN THE CASE OF TEJ INTERNATIONAL (P.) LTD. V. DCIT (69 TTJ 650), IN THE HIERARCHICAL JUDICIAL SYSTEM THAT WE HAVE IN INDIA, THE WISDOM OF THE COURT BELOW HAS TO YIELD TO THE HIGHER WISDOM OF TH E COURT ABOVE AND, THEREFORE, ONCE AN AUTHORITY HIGHER THAN THIS TRIBU NAL HAS EXPRESSED ITS ESTEEMED VIEWS ON AN ISSUE, NORMALLY THE DECISI ON OF THE HIGHER JUDICIAL AUTHORITY IS TO BE FOLLOWED. THE BENCH HAS FURTHER HELD THAT THE FACT THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THE HIGHER JUDICIAL F ORUM IS FROM A NON- JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT DOES NOT REALLY ALTER THI S POSITION, AS LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. GODAVARI DEVI SARAF ( 113 ITR 589 ). FOR SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT REASONS AND ALONGWITH SOME OTHER OBSERVATIONS ON TH E ISSUE, WHICH WE SHALL SET OUT A LITTLE LATER, WE ARE IN AGREEMEN T WITH THE CONCLUSIONS ARRIVED IN THIS CASE. 6. THAT TAKES US TO THE QUESTION WHETHER THIS DECISIO N STANDS OVERRULED BY THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT'S LATER JUDGMENT I N THE CASE OF THANA ELECTRICITY CO. LTD. (SUPRA), AS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE. 7. IT IS ALSO IMPORTANT TO BEAR IN MIND THAT THE QUES TION REQUIRING ADJUDICATION BY THEIR LORDSHIP WAS WHETHER OR NOT D ECISION OF ONE OF THE HIGH COURTS WAS BINDING ON THE OTHER HIGH COURT S. THIS WILL BE CLEAR FROM FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THEIR LOR DSHIPS IN THE BEGINNING OF THE JUDGMENT : 'ON A CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE SUBMISSIONS OF T HE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, WE FIND THAT BEFORE TAKING UP THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE QUESTION OF LAW REFERRED TO US IN THIS CASE FOR CON SIDERATION, IT IS NECESSARY TO FIRST DECIDE.... WHETHER THIS COURT, W HILE INTERPRETING AN ALL INDIA STATUTE LIKE INCOME-TAX ACT, IS BOUND TO FOLLOW THE DECISIONS OF ANY OTHER HIGH COURT AND TO DECIDE ACCORDINGLY, EVEN IF ITS OWN VIEW IS CONTRARY THERETO, BECAUSE OF THE PRACTICE F OLLOWED IN THIS COURT. BECAUSE, IF WE ARE TO ACCEPT THIS SUBMISSION , IT WILL BE AN EXERCISE IN FUTILITY TO EXAMINE THE REAL CONTROVERS Y BEFORE US....' 8. ONE OF THE PROPOSITIONS THAT THEIR LORDSHIPS TOOK NOTE OF WAS THAT 'THE DECISIONS OF THE HIGH COURT ON THE SUBORDINATE COURTS AND AUTHORITIES OR TRIBUNALS UNDER ITS SUPERINTENDENCE THROUGHOUT THE TERRITORIES IN RELATION TO WHICH IT EXERCISES JURIS DICTION (BUT) IT DOES NOT EXTEND BEYOND ITS TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION.' TH EIR LORDSHIPS IN THE SAME PARAGRAPH ALSO NOTED THAT 'A DIVISION BENCH OF THE HIGH COURT ITA.99/BANG/2017 & CO.75/BANG/2017 PAGE - 6 SHOULD FOLLOW THE DECISION OF ANOTHER DIVISION BENC H OF EQUAL STRENGTH OR A FULL BENCH OF THE SAME HIGH COURT', AND 'IF ON E DIVISION BENCH DIFFERS WITH ANOTHER DIVISION BENCH OF THE SAME HIG H COURT, IT SHOULD REFER THE CASE TO A LARGER BENCH'. HAVING THUS NOTE D THE PROPOSITION, THEIR LORDSHIPS PROCEEDED TO 'ANALYSE THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT, ON WHICH RELIANCE HAS BEEN PLACED BY THE LEARNED COUNS EL FOR THE ASSESSEE, IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION THAT DECISIO N OF ANY OTHER HIGH COURT ON ALL INDIA STATUTE LIKE INCOME-TAX ACT, IS BINDING EVEN ON THIS COURT AND ON THE TRIBUNALS OUTSIDE JURISDICTIONS OF THAT HIGH COURT'. ON GODAVARI DEVI SARAF'S CASE (SUPRA), WHICH WAS DE LIVERED BY A DIVISION BENCH OF EQUAL STRENGTH OF THIS VERY HON'B LE HIGH COURT, THEIR LORDSHIPS TOOK NOTE OF REVENUE'S STAND AS FOL LOWS : 'REFERRING TO THE OBSERVATIONS OF GODAVARI DEVI (SU PRA), THAT AN ALL INDIA TRIBUNAL ACTING ANYWHERE SHOULD FOLLOW THE DE CISIONS OF ANY OTHER HIGH COURT ON THE POINT, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE COUNSEL OF THE REVENUE THAT THIS OBSERVATION ITSELF WOULD SHOW THA T THE HIGH COURT WAS AWARE OF THE FACT THAT DIFFERENT HIGH COURTS WE RE NOT BOUND BY THE DECISIONS OF EACH OTHER AND, AS SUCH, THERE MAY BE CONTRARY DECISIONS OF DIFFERENT HIGH COURTS ON THE SAME POIN T.' 9. THE ISSUE OF CONSIDERATION WAS THUS CONFINED TO TH E QUESTION WHETHER OR NOT A HIGH COURT DECISION IS BINDING ON ANOTHER HIGH COURT OR NOT. THAT ADMITTEDLY WAS THE CORE ISSUE DE CIDED BY THEIR LORDSHIPS. AS FOR THE BINDING NATURE OF NON-JURISDI CTIONAL HIGH COURT DECISIONS ON THE TRIBUNAL, THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THEIR LORDSHIPS WERE NO MORE THAN OBITER DICTUM AND IN THIS VERY JU DGMENT, THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE HELD THAT EVEN IN THE CASE OF HON'BL E SUPREME COURT JUDGMENTS, WHICH ARE BINDING ON ALL COURTS, EXCEPT SUPREME COURT ITSELF, BUT 'WHAT IS BINDING, OF COURSE, IS THE RAT IO OF THE DECISION AND NOT EVERY EXPRESSION FOUND THEREIN'. THEIR LORDSHIP S HAVE ALSO REFERRED TO THE OFT QUOTED JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. SUN ENGG. WORKS (P.) LTD. ( 198 ITR 297 ) WHEREIN IT IS HELD THAT 'IT IS NEITHER DESIRABLE NOR PERMISSIB LE TO PICK OUT A WORD OR A SENTENCE FROM THE JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT, DIVO RCED FROM THE CONTEXT OF QUESTION UNDER CONSIDERATION, AND TREAT IT TO BE COMPLETE LAW DECLARED BY THIS COURT.' [EMPHASIS SUPPLIED]. 10. IN THIS LIGHT, AND BEARING IN MIND THE FACT THAT L IMITED QUESTION BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS WAS WHETHER OR NOT DECISION OF ONE OF THE HIGH COURTS IS BINDING ON ANOTHER HIGH COURT, IT WOULD A PPEAR TO US THAT RATIO DECIDENDI IN THANA ELECTRICITY CO. LTD. (SUPRA), IS ON THE NON-BINDING NATURE OF A HIGH COURT'S JUDGMENT ON AN OTHER HIGH COURT. IN ANY CASE, THIS DIVISION BENCH DID NOT, AN D AS STATED IN THIS ITA.99/BANG/2017 & CO.75/BANG/2017 PAGE - 7 JUDGMENT ITSELF, COULD NOT HAVE DIFFERED WITH ANOTH ER DIVISION BENCH OF THE SAME STRENGTH IN THE CASE OF GODAVARI DEVI S ARAF (SUPRA). THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE OPEN TO A SUBORDINATE TRIBU NAL LIKE US TO DISREGARD ANY OF THE JUDGMENTS OF THE HON'BLE BOMBA Y HIGH COURT, WHETHER IN THE CASE OF THANA ELECTRICITY CO. LTD. ( SUPRA) OR IN THE CASE OF GODAVARI DEVI SARAF. IT IS INDEED OUR DUTY TO LOYALLY EXTEND UTMOST RESPECT AND REVERENCE TO THE HON'BLE HIGH CO URT, AND TO READ THESE TWO JUDGMENTS BY THE DIVISION BENCHES OF EQUA L STRENGTH OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, I.E., IN THE CAS ES OF THANA ELECTRICITY CO. LTD. (SUPRA) AND GODAVARI DEVI SARA F (SUPRA), IN A HARMONIOUS MANNER. IN OUR VIEW, THEREFORE THE JUDGMENT OF THE NON-JURI SDICTIONAL HIGH COURT BINDS THE REVENUE, UNLESS THERE IS A CONTRARY JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT JUDGMENT. FURTHER WE ALSO FIND THAT CAS E IS COVERED BY COORDINATE BENCH DECISION IN THE MATTER OF CERNER H EALTHCARE SOLUTIONS P. LTD [ITA.675/BANG/2012, DT.08.01.2016] , WHEREIN THE COORDINATE BENCH IN PARAS 19 AND 20 HELD AS UNDER : 19. AS RIGHTLY CONTENDED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THE CONSEQUENCE OF DISALLOWANCE U/S.40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT WILL BE TH AT THE BUSINESS PROFITS OF THE ASSESSEE TO THAT EXTENT WILL STAND E NHANCED. IN THE CASE OF GEM PLUS JEWELLERY INDIA LTD. (SUPRA), THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAD TO ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTION OF LAW: 'WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE, THE TRIBUNAL WAS JUSTIFIED IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING O FFICER TO GRANT THE EXEMPTION U/S.10A OF THE ACT ON THE ASSESSED INCOME , WHICH WAS ENHANCED DUE TO DISALLOWANCE OF EMPLOYER'S AS WELL AS EMPLOYEE'S CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS PF/ ESIC;' THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HELD ON THE ABOVE QUE STION OF LAW AS FOLLOWS: '12. BY REASON OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V. ALOM EXTRUSIONS LI MITED THE EMPLOYER'S CONTRIBUTION WAS LIABLE TO BE ALLOWED, S INCE IT WAS DEPOSITED BY THE DUE DATE FOR THE FILING OF THE RET URN. THE PECULIAR POSITION, HOWEVER, AS IT OBTAINS IN THE PRESENT CAS E ARISES OUT OF THE FACT THAT THE DISALLOWANCE WHICH WAS EFFECTED BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT, THE COURT IS INFORMED, BEEN CHALLE NGED BY THE ASSESSEE. AS A MATTER OF FACT THE QUESTION OF LAW W HICH IS FORMULATED ITA.99/BANG/2017 & CO.75/BANG/2017 PAGE - 8 BY THE REVENUE PROCEEDS ON THE BASIS THAT THE ASSES SED INCOME WAS ENHANCED DUE TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE EMPLOYER'S AS WELL AS THE EMPLOYEES' CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS PROVIDENT FUND /ESI C AND THE ONLY QUESTION WHICH IS CANVASSED ON BEHALF OF THE R EVENUE IS WHETHER ON THAT BASIS THE TRIBUNAL WAS JUSTIFIED IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO GRANT THE EXEMPTION UNDER SECT ION 10A. ON THIS POSITION, IN THE PRESENT CASE IT CANNOT BE DISPUTED THAT THE NET CONSEQUENCE OF THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE EMPLOYER'S A ND THE EMPLOYEE'S CONTRIBUTION IS THAT THE BUSINESS PROFIT S HAVE TO THAT EXTENT BEEN ENHANCED. THERE WAS, AS WE HAVE ALREADY NOTED, AN ADD BACK BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE INCOME. ALL PR OFITS OF THE 4 (2009) 319 ITR 306 UNIT OF THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN DERIVED FROM MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY. THE SALARIES PAID BY THE ASSESSEE, IT HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED, RELATE TO THE MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY. THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE PROVIDENT FUND/ ESIC PAYMENTS HAS BEEN MADE BECAUSE OF THE ST ATUTORY PROVISIONS - SECTION 43B IN THE CASE OF THE EMPLOYE R'S CONTRIBUTION AND SECTION 36(V) READ WITH SECTION 2(24)(X) IN THE CASE OF THE EMPLOYEE'S CONTRIBUTION WHICH HAS BEEN DEEMED TO BE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE PLAIN CONSEQUENCE OF THE DISALLOW ANCE AND THE ADD BACK THAT HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R IS AN INCREASE IN THE BUSINESS PROFITS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE CONTEN TION OF THE REVENUE THAT IN COMPUTING THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTI ON 10A THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE PROVIDENT FUND/ESIC PAYMENTS OUGHT TO BE IGNORED CANNOT BE AC CEPTED. NO STATUTORY PROVISION TO THAT EFFECT HAVING BEEN M ADE, THE PLAIN CONSEQUENCE OF THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER MUST FOLLOW. THE SECOND QUESTION SHALL ACCORDINGLY STAND ANSWERED AGAINST THE REVENUE AND IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE.' 20. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID DECISION OF THE HON'BL E BOMBAY HIGH COURT WHICH HAS BEEN FOLLOWED IN SEVERAL DECISIONS RENDERED BY ITAT BENCHES OF DELHI, HYDERABAD AND BANGALORE REFE RRED TO IN THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THI S ISSUE DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. CONSEQUENTLY, GROUNDS NO S. 5 TO 8 RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. THEREFORE IN THE CONSIDERED OPINION OF THE BENCH, T HE COORDINATE BENCH, IN SIMILAR FACTS, HAS TAKEN A DECISION AGAIN ST THE REVENUE. THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH IS BI NDING. ITA.99/BANG/2017 & CO.75/BANG/2017 PAGE - 9 10. WE MAY RECORD THAT THE CIT (A) IN PARA 9.5 OF H IS ORDER HAS REMANDED THE MATTER BACK TO THE AO FOR RE COMPUTING THE DEDUCTION U/S.10A OF THE ACT. IN OUR VIEW, THE CIT (A) HAS N O POWER TO REMAND THE MATTER FOR RE COMPUTING TO THE AO. THER EFORE, IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE DIRECT THE AO TO RE COMPUTE T HE DEDUCTION U/S.10A OF THE ASSESSEE, CONSIDERING THE DISALLOWA NCE MADE U/S.40(A)(I) AS IT WOULD RESULT IN ENHANCING THE PR OFIT DERIVED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH IN TURN RESULTS IN ENHANCED PROFIT D EDUCTION U/S.10A, WE MAY ALSO POINT OUT THAT AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE BENCH HAD INDICATED, ON THE SUBMISSION OF LD. AR ,TO SEND BAC K THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF AO, UNDER THE WRONG IMPRESSION THAT TH E CASE PERTAINS TO 80IB, WHEREAS THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT OF SUCH SENDI NG BACK TO THE AO FOR VERIFICATION AS THE CASE PERTAINS TO 10A. AC CORDINGLY, THE GROUND NO.3 IS DECIDED AGAINST THE REVENUE. CROSS OBJECTION NO.75/BANG/2017 BY THE ASSESSEE : 09. AS WE HAVE DISMISSED THE REVENUE APPEAL, THE CR OSS OBJECTION FILED BECOMES ACADEMIC AND HENCE DISMISSED AS INFRU CTUOUS. 10. TO SUMMARISE, REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED AND THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DISMISSED AS INFR UCTUOUS. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 ST DAY OF JUNE, 2018. SD/- SD/- (A. K. GARODIA) (LALIET KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER BENGALURU DATED : 01.06.2018 MCN* ITA.99/BANG/2017 & CO.75/BANG/2017 PAGE - 10 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 SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE.