Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, PUNE
Before: SHRI R.S.SYAL, VP & SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM
This corrigendum is being issued to correct the inadvertent typographical error crept in Para 18 of the order of the Tribunal dated 05.03.2020 wherein the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal mentioned as extracting Para 45 of the Tribunal’s decision in for assessment year 2009-10 in assessee’s own case instead of Paras 46 and 47. Now, Para 18 should be read as follows:
“18. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in for assessment year 2009-10 in assessee’s own case wherein vide Para 46 & 47, the Tribunal on the issue has held as follows: 46. Ground No.7 of the assessee's appeal is against reduction in the amount of deduction u/s.10A by a sum of Rs.2,41,23,133/- on the premise that the assessee is in the business of Deputation of Technical Manpower (DTM) and/or rendering of technical services outside India and hence income from providing onsite development of computer software is not eligible for deduction u/s.10A.
Similar issue has been determined by the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for the A.Y. 2007-08 holding that the amount relatable to DTM and onsite software services should be considered as eligible for deduction u/s.10A of the Act. Since facts and circumstances are admittedly similar, following the view taken for the A.Y. 2007-08, we determine this issue in favour of assessee. Respectfully following the decision mentioned herein above, we allow ground No.3 raised by the assessee and dismiss ground No.3 of appeal of the Revenue on this count.”
Another inadvertent typographical error had crept in at last line of Para 32 of the order of the Tribunal (supra.) wherein it is inadvertently mentioned that “32…………..Thus, Ground No.5 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.” which should be read as “32………..Thus, Ground No.5 of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed as infructuous.” This is so because on the issue of foreign exchange fluctuation gain, how much it is in capital account and how much it is in revenue account, this had to be ascertained by the Assessing Officer. The amount of foreign exchange gain towards the capital account and towards the revenue account has to be ascertained by the Assessing Officer. The addition on foreign exchange gain on the capital account would be deleted and addition pertaining to the foreign exchange gain on the revenue account would be confirmed. This was the view taken by the Ld. CIT(Appeals) at Para 2.7.6 of his order which we have confirmed vide Para 32 of our order restoring the matter to the file of Assessing Officer/TPO for such proper adjudication of the issue. The assessee also wants the same thing. Now, the Para 32 should be read as follows: “32. We have perused the case records and analyzed the facts and circumstances in this case. We have also given considerable thought to the findings of the First Appellate Authority wherein at the very outset, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) observed that Assessing Officer has not examined as to how much fluctuation gain is on the capital account and how much is on the revenue account. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) and restore the matter to the file of the AO/TPO for proper verification and adjudication after complying with the principles of natural justice. Thus, Ground No.5 of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed as infructuous.”