ZENSAR TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,MUMBAI V. DCIT CIRCLE - 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

MA 335/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Zensar Technologies Limited, which filed a Miscellaneous Petition against an order concerning the assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13. The petition addressed typographic and factual inaccuracies in the Tribunal's consolidated order dated 23.05.2025, which initially overlooked specific details about the Pune unit of Zensar Technologies. The Tribunal acknowledged the errors and corrected the findings to include the Pune unit's details, aligning them with the previously discussed facts and arguments concerning the Hyderabad unit. The corrections ensured that the Tribunal's conclusions accurately reflected the circumstances and legal provisions applicable to both units under the Income Tax Act.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 832131 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 22-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: J
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 04-12-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Apollo Tyres vs. Hon'ble Supreme Court
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SWAPNIL CHOUDHARI
• Assessee Lawyers: NITESH JOSHI; NINAD
• Keywords: Business expenditure
• Section: 115JB; 244A; 37(1); 10AA

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) MA. 335/Mum/2025 (Arising out of ITA No. 4307/Mum/2024) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Zensar Technologies Limited Kharadi, Plot No. 4, MIDC, Off Nagar Road, Pune 401104 PAN:AAACF0742K Vs. DCIT Circle 2(3)(1), Mumbai 5th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Marg, Mumbai 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Nitesh Joshi & Shri Ninad Patade Respondent by Shri Swapnil Choudhari (SR. DR) Date of Hearing 16/01/2026 Date of Pronouncement 22/01/2026 ORDER Per: Smt. Beena Pillai, J.M.: The present Miscellaneous Petition has been filed by the assessee in the consolidated order passed by this Tribunal for AY 2011-12 and 2012-13 vide order dated 23.05.2025. 2. Ld. AR submitted that certain typographic inadvertent mistake crept in while passing the impugned order by this Tribunal as under: Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 2 MA No.335/Mum/2025 Zensar Technologies Limited “Issue one: 3. In respect of Ground No. 3 - 4 this Tribunal considered the issue regarding disallowance of expenditure incurred towards prior period of commencement of commercial operations of new Pune unit and new Hyderabad unit located in SEZ Zone together. Ld. AR submitted that while giving finding in paragraph 8.2.1 this Tribunal inadvertently did not mention about the Pune unit. He submitted that entire factual discussion, the arguments raised by the assessee as well as the Ld. DR and the findings up to para 8.2 of the order are considering both Pune as well as Hyderabad SEZ units. He submitted that, however in final conclusion in para 8.2.1, finding is only in respect of Hyderabad unit, leading to a mistake apparent on record. 3.1. The ld. AR has prayed for a finding also to be given in respect of Pune unit for completeness of grounds raised therein. 3.2. Ld. DR on the contrary, did not object to the submissions of the assesse. We have perused the submissions advance by both sides in the light of records placed before us. 4. It is noted that para 8.2.1 this Tribunal did not give finding regarding the Pune unit. Accordingly, para 8.2.1 is modified to include findings regarding Pune unit and shall be henceforth, read as under: “8.2.1. In respect of Pune unit it is noted that the approval was received on 27.05.2008 and it commenced its operation from 10.04.2010. The assessee could have claimed the deduction u/s. 10A/10AA for the first time in the AY 2011-12. However, as there was losses from this unit no deduction was claimed during AY 2011-12. The assessee thus, claim Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 3 MA No.335/Mum/2025 Zensar Technologies Limited the deduction u/s. 10AA from the subsequent AY being 2012-13. 8.2.2. In so far as Hyderabad unit is concerned, approval was received on 13/08/2009 and it commenced its operation from 01/07/2011. The assessee had thus claimed deduction u/s.10AA form assessment year 2012-13 being subsequent assessment to the year under consideration. 8.2.3. In our considered opinion assessee cannot be denied expenditure in respect of Pune & Hyderabad unit u/s 37(1) as business expenditure as it is incurred for the purposes of its business. Accordingly ground no.3-4 raised by the assessee stands allowed.” Accordingly, this issue one raised by the assessee in the Miscellaneous Petition stands allowed. 5. Issue 2 raised by the assessee is regarding Ground No. 5. 5.1. The Ld. AR submitted that for AY 2012-13 grounds are identical that with of 2011-12 on similar facts. He submitted that, Ground No.1 raised for AY 2012-13 is identical with Ground No. 4 for AY 2011-12. He referred to the note dated 09.04.2025 filed before this Tribunal at the time of hearing, wherein the above factual situation was categorical clarified in para 3(a) of the written submission. 5.2. He submitted that there are certain typographic errors that has crept in paras at page 16 & 17 of the Tribunal’s order as a result, of the facts not correctly recorded therein. He submitted that the appeal for AY 2009-10 is pending before this Tribunal. However, in para 9.4 at page 16 and in para 4 at page 17 of the Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 4 MA No.335/Mum/2025 Zensar Technologies Limited impugned order it mentioned to be pending before Ld. CIT(A). He further submitted that there are certain typographic and grammatical errors in para 4 at page 17 of the impugned order as a result of which, the findings in para 4 at page 17 is not very clear. He submitted that the paragraph 4 at page 17A the order made to be appropriately corrected based on the factual observations in the preceding para therein. 5.3. On perusal of the record, it is noted that the above error highlighted by the Ld. AR deserve to be corrected. It is also noted suo-moto that there is typographic error in the numbering of the paragraph in respect of the paragraph at page 17 of the impugned order. It is also noted that in para 4 at page 17, these has crept in certain grammatical errors due to which the view of this Tribunal is nor correctly captured. We also note that Ground No.5 has not been completely adjudicated as findings relating to facts recorded in para 9.3 and 9.4 has not been given. Considering these, hence forth, after para 9.4 onwards shall be read as under. We also correct the numbering of para 4 appearing at page 17 of the impugned order, to be read as para 10. “9.4. He further submitted that the appeal for assessment year 2009-10 is pending before this Tribunal. It is further submitted that, the assessing office in any event cannot change the figures to the book profit under 115JB for assessment year 2011-12. He placed reliance on the decision of Apollo tyres by Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 255 ITA 73 in support of this claim. 9.5. The Ld. DR on the contrary, relied on the orders passed by the authorities below. He submitted that the issue may be remanded to the Ld. CIT(A), for proper appreciation of facts. Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 5 MA No.335/Mum/2025 Zensar Technologies Limited We have perused the submissions advance by both sides in the light of record placed before us. 10. This is a peculiar case wherein based on the intimation received by the assessee for AY 2006-07, the interest granted u/s. 244A was entirely offered to tax by the assessee during the AY 2009-10. This was done so as the intimation for AY 2006-07 was received by the assessee during AY 2009-10. Subsequently, Ld. AO passed the assessment order for AY 2006-07 on 08.10.2010 (falling in assessment year 2011-12) and Reduced the amount of refund and computed the interest as per section 244A at Rs. 9,29,057/-. 10.1. It is further noted that in the books of account of the assessee for the year under consideration assessee debited aggregate interest expenditure of Rs. 54,28,964/- which included the interest withdrawn for AY 2006-07. The Ld. AO while passing the assessment order for AY 2011-12, denied the claim by observing that the deduction for such interest has to be claimed only in the year 2009-10 and not in any other year. 10.2. In our considered opinion computation to that extent becomes erroneous and amount that is disallowed by the assessing officer becomes doubly taxed in the hands of the assessee. As per the submissions of the Ld. AR appeal for the assessment year 2009-10 is pending before the ITAT. If it all any adjustment to be made, it is to be made for assessment year 2009-10. We also note that, the book profit offered by the assessee for the year under consideration is less then the normal profit and therefore the taxability during the year under consideration will depend based on the normal profit computed under the provisions of the Act. Thus no impact would on the book profit computed for the year under consideration. We thus direct ld. AO to consider the claim of assessee to the extent of interest being restricted u/s.244A of the Act pertaining to assessment year 2006-07. 10.3. It is further noted that for the purposes of computation of took profit u/s. 115JB. The said interest expenditure that represents the interest on refund which stands withdrawn pursuant to passing of assessment order for AY 2006-07 cannot be added for the purpose of computing book profit for year under consideration. The explanations to section 115JB do not permit such kind of addition to be made. We therefore, direct the ld. AO not to include the interest expenditure i.e. debited to the profit and loss account while computing book profits of the assessee for Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 6 MA No.335/Mum/2025 Zensar Technologies Limited the year under consideration u/s. 115JB of the Act. Accordingly ground no. 5 raised by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes.” Accordingly, this issue raised by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. In the result, Miscellaneous Petition filed by the assessee stands allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 22/01/2026 Sd/- Sd/- (ARUN KHODPIA) (BEENA PILLAI) Accountant Member Judicial Member Mumbai: Dated: 22/01/2026 Divya Ramesh Nandgaonkar, Stenographer Copy of the order forwarded to: (1)The Appellant (2) The Respondent (3) The CIT (4) The CIT (Appeals) (5) The DR, I.T.A.T. BY ORDER, (Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "