ACIT CIRLCE 22(2), DELHI vs. SAVISTA GLOBAL SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, SOUTH EAST DELHI

आदेश / ORDER PER AMITABH SHUKLA, AM,

This appeal filed by the Revenue is against the order dated 30.07.2025 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, New Delhi,[hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT(A)] arising out of assessment order dated 26.03.2013passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 pertaining to Assessment Year 1961 pertaining to Assessment Year 2010-11. The word ‘Act’ herein this order word ‘Act’ herein this order

would mean Income Tax Act, 1961. would mean Income Tax Act, 1961.

regarding the decision of Ld. CIT(A) in del regarding the decision of Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition made by the ld. AO eting the addition made by the ld. AO

invoking provisions of section 10A of the Act. invoking provisions of section 10A of the Act.

assessee company is a private limited company engaged in the business of providing assessee company is a private limited company engaged in the business of providing assessee company is a private limited company engaged in the business of providing

healthcare outsourcing services for healthcare industry in USA. Return of Income for althcare outsourcing services for healthcare industry in USA. Return of Income for althcare outsourcing services for healthcare industry in USA. Return of Income for

AY 2010-11 was filed on 15.10.2010 declaring NIL income. Assessment u/s 143(3) 11 was filed on 15.10.2010 declaring NIL income. Assessment u/s 143(3) 11 was filed on 15.10.2010 declaring NIL income. Assessment u/s 143(3)

was completed at total income of Rs.5,62,62,257/ was completed at total income of Rs.5,62,62,257/- vide order dated 26.03.2013. The vide order dated 26.03.2013. The

ld. AO inter alia made an addition of Rs.9,75,98,089/ nter alia made an addition of Rs.9,75,98,089/- on account of disallowance of on account of disallowance of

deduction u/s 10A of the Act. The ld. AO held that the amount of Rs.9,75,98,089/- deduction u/s 10A of the Act. The ld. AO held that the amount of Rs.9,75,98,089/ deduction u/s 10A of the Act. The ld. AO held that the amount of Rs.9,75,98,089/ earned by the assessee from Indus BPO Services Pvt. Ltd. does not qualifies Export earned by the assessee from Indus BPO Services Pvt. Ltd. does not qualifies Export earned by the assessee from Indus BPO Services Pvt. Ltd. does not qualifies Export

turnover as the same was not received from the overseas client but through an Indian e same was not received from the overseas client but through an Indian e same was not received from the overseas client but through an Indian

intermediary.

ld. CIT(A) and argued that there was no infirmity in the order of the First Appellate ld. CIT(A) and argued that there was no infirmity in the order of the First Appellate ld. CIT(A) and argued that there was no infirmity in the order of the First Appellate

Authority. In particular, our attention was invited to the contents of para 4.2 of the thority. In particular, our attention was invited to the contents of para 4.2 of the thority. In particular, our attention was invited to the contents of para 4.2 of the

appellate order on pages 12 to 14 of the order. For the purposes of the clarity, the appellate order on pages 12 to 14 of the order. For the purposes of the clarity, the appellate order on pages 12 to 14 of the order. For the purposes of the clarity, the

same are reproduced hereunder: same are reproduced hereunder:-

“….4.2 Discussion and appellate decision: Discussion and appellate decision:- In this case, the appellant has changed its name multiple times. Initially, case, the appellant has changed its name multiple times. Initially, case, the appellant has changed its name multiple times. Initially, at the time the assessment order was passed, the name of the appellant at the time the assessment order was passed, the name of the appellant at the time the assessment order was passed, the name of the appellant company was “e4e Healthcare Business Services Pvt. Ltd.” company was “e4e Healthcare Business Services Pvt. Ltd.” company was “e4e Healthcare Business Services Pvt. Ltd.” Subsequently, it was changed to “nThrive Global Solutions P Subsequently, it was changed to “nThrive Global Solutions Pvt. Ltd.,” vt. Ltd.,” and it has now been changed to “Savista Global Solutions Pvt. Ltd.” and it has now been changed to “Savista Global Solutions Pvt. Ltd.” and it has now been changed to “Savista Global Solutions Pvt. Ltd.”

The submission filed by the appellant has been duly considered and The submission filed by the appellant has been duly considered and The submission filed by the appellant has been duly considered and material available on record has been perused. Case laws cited by the material available on record has been perused. Case laws cited by the material available on record has been perused. Case laws cited by the appellant have been gone through. The a appellant have been gone through. The appellant is engaged in the ppellant is engaged in the business of providing healthcare outsourcing services for the healthcare business of providing healthcare outsourcing services for the healthcare business of providing healthcare outsourcing services for the healthcare industry in the United States of America. The appellant rendered such industry in the United States of America. The appellant rendered such industry in the United States of America. The appellant rendered such services through a third services through a third-party arrangement and claimed exemption party arrangement and claimed exemption u/s.10A of the

Income-tax Act, 1961, on the basis of deemed exports. The A.O. denied tax Act, 1961, on the basis of deemed exports. The A.O. denied tax Act, 1961, on the basis of deemed exports. The A.O. denied the exemption u/s.10A, stating that the services were not directly the exemption u/s.10A, stating that the services were not directly the exemption u/s.10A, stating that the services were not directly exported by the appellant and were routed through a third party, thus exported by the appellant and were routed through a third party, thus exported by the appellant and were routed through a third party, thus not qualifying as "exports" for the purpose of Section not qualifying as "exports" for the purpose of Section 10A.

It is important to note that in the appellant’s own case for A.Y. 2009-10, It is important to note that in the appellant’s own case for A.Y. 2009 It is important to note that in the appellant’s own case for A.Y. 2009 involving similar issues, the Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal. involving similar issues, the Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal. involving similar issues, the Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal. Subsequently, the appellant filed a further appeal before the Hon’ble Subsequently, the appellant filed a further appeal before the Hon’ble Subsequently, the appellant filed a further appeal before the Hon’ble ITAT, which set aside the matter and ITAT, which set aside the matter and remanded it back to the file of the remanded it back to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. In compliance, the jurisdictional AO allowed AO for fresh adjudication. In compliance, the jurisdictional AO allowed AO for fresh adjudication. In compliance, the jurisdictional AO allowed the deduction u/s.10A of the Income the deduction u/s.10A of the Income-tax Act on export sales made tax Act on export sales made through Indus BPO and also addressed the disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) of through Indus BPO and also addressed the disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) of through Indus BPO and also addressed the disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act in the appellant’s own case for A.Y. 2009 the appellant’s own case for A.Y. 2009-10, vide order 10, vide order u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 254 of the Act dated 06.12.2019. u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 254 of the Act dated 06.12.2019.

As far as the eligibility for deduction u/s.10A of the Act is concerned, As far as the eligibility for deduction u/s.10A of the Act is concerned, As far as the eligibility for deduction u/s.10A of the Act is concerned, various decisions of the Courts and the ITAT are squarely applicable to various decisions of the Courts and the ITAT are squarely applicable to various decisions of the Courts and the ITAT are squarely applicable to the case of the appellant. Some of the relevant judicial pronouncements ase of the appellant. Some of the relevant judicial pronouncements ase of the appellant. Some of the relevant judicial pronouncements as relied upon by the appellant are as under: as relied upon by the appellant are as under:-

(i) Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-12(1), Bangalore v. Metal Closures (P.) Ltd. [2019] 12(1), Bangalore v. Metal Closures (P.) Ltd. [2019] 12(1), Bangalore v. Metal Closures (P.) Ltd. [2019] 102 taxmann.com 72 (SC) (which supports the case of the appellant) laid xmann.com 72 (SC) (which supports the case of the appellant) laid xmann.com 72 (SC) (which supports the case of the appellant) laid down the law that exports routed through third parties can still be down the law that exports routed through third parties can still be down the law that exports routed through third parties can still be considered as eligible exports for the purposes of deduction under considered as eligible exports for the purposes of deduction under considered as eligible exports for the purposes of deduction under Section 10A, provided the appellant is the actual servi Section 10A, provided the appellant is the actual service provider and ce provider and earns foreign exchange from such services. earns foreign exchange from such services.

(ii) The Karnataka High Court in the case of M/s Tata Elxsi Limited The Karnataka High Court in the case of M/s Tata Elxsi Limited The Karnataka High Court in the case of M/s Tata Elxsi Limited vs ACIT (ITA No.411/2008) clarified that Section 10A focuses on the vs ACIT (ITA No.411/2008) clarified that Section 10A focuses on the vs ACIT (ITA No.411/2008) clarified that Section 10A focuses on the nature of the activity and the earning of foreign exchange, nature of the activity and the earning of foreign exchange, rather than rather than the mode or channel of export. Services rendered by the assessee which the mode or channel of export. Services rendered by the assessee which the mode or channel of export. Services rendered by the assessee which resulted in the inflow of convertible foreign exchange qualified for resulted in the inflow of convertible foreign exchange qualified for resulted in the inflow of convertible foreign exchange qualified for deduction, even if routed through an intermediary. deduction, even if routed through an intermediary.

(iii) The Karnataka High Court in the case of Princi The Karnataka High Court in the case of Principal CIT, pal CIT, Bengaluru v. International Stones India (P.) Ltd [2018] 95 taxmann.com Bengaluru v. International Stones India (P.) Ltd [2018] 95 taxmann.com Bengaluru v. International Stones India (P.) Ltd [2018] 95 taxmann.com 287 upheld the eligibility of deduction under Section 10A in the case of 287 upheld the eligibility of deduction under Section 10A in the case of 287 upheld the eligibility of deduction under Section 10A in the case of exports made through third parties, where the goods/services ultimately exports made through third parties, where the goods/services ultimately exports made through third parties, where the goods/services ultimately reach a foreign destination and reach a foreign destination and foreign exchange is received. It foreign exchange is received. It confirmed that indirect exports still meet the requirements of Section confirmed that indirect exports still meet the requirements of Section confirmed that indirect exports still meet the requirements of Section 10A.

(iv) The Hon’ble Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. M/s Sasken The Hon’ble Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. M/s Sasken The Hon’ble Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. M/s Sasken Communication

Technologies Ltd (ITA No 44 Technologies Ltd (ITA No 44-45 of 2016) held that software 45 of 2016) held that software development or technology nt or technology-enabled services rendered from India and enabled services rendered from India and ultimately consumed abroad are eligible for exemption under Section ultimately consumed abroad are eligible for exemption under Section ultimately consumed abroad are eligible for exemption under Section 10A, irrespective of whether billing is done directly to the foreign client 10A, irrespective of whether billing is done directly to the foreign client 10A, irrespective of whether billing is done directly to the foreign client or routed through another Indian company. or routed through another Indian company.

(v) The decisions of the Hon’ble Tribunals in the cases of CIT V/s isions of the Hon’ble Tribunals in the cases of CIT V/s isions of the Hon’ble Tribunals in the cases of CIT V/s Earth Stone Group (ITA 735/2016) and Earth Stone Group Vs. ACIT Earth Stone Group (ITA 735/2016) and Earth Stone Group Vs. ACIT Earth Stone Group (ITA 735/2016) and Earth Stone Group Vs. ACIT (ITA 2188/Del/2012) confirmed that when the beneficiary of export is (ITA 2188/Del/2012) confirmed that when the beneficiary of export is (ITA 2188/Del/2012) confirmed that when the beneficiary of export is outside India, and necessary documentation (such as agreements, outside India, and necessary documentation (such as agreements, outside India, and necessary documentation (such as agreements, foreign inward remittance certificates, and third eign inward remittance certificates, and third-party confirmations) is party confirmations) is available, the deduction under Section 10A cannot be denied on mere available, the deduction under Section 10A cannot be denied on mere available, the deduction under Section 10A cannot be denied on mere technical grounds.

(vi) The Hon’ble Tribunal in the case of Magnum Forge and Machine The Hon’ble Tribunal in the case of Magnum Forge and Machine The Hon’ble Tribunal in the case of Magnum Forge and Machine Works Pvt Ltd V/s ACIT (ITA No Works Pvt Ltd V/s ACIT (ITA No.07/PN/2014) reiterated that what .07/PN/2014) reiterated that what matters is the nature of the transaction and realization of foreign matters is the nature of the transaction and realization of foreign matters is the nature of the transaction and realization of foreign exchange, not necessarily the direct contractual relationship with the exchange, not necessarily the direct contractual relationship with the exchange, not necessarily the direct contractual relationship with the foreign buyer. The third foreign buyer. The third-party route did not preclude eligibility for party route did not preclude eligibility for Section 10A deduction. eduction.

In support of the contention that deemed export is eligible for the In support of the contention that deemed export is eligible for the In support of the contention that deemed export is eligible for the deduction u/s.10A of the Act, the appellant has relied upon the above deduction u/s.10A of the Act, the appellant has relied upon the above deduction u/s.10A of the Act, the appellant has relied upon the above decisions of various courts including jurisdictional Courts. I have gone decisions of various courts including jurisdictional Courts. I have gone decisions of various courts including jurisdictional Courts. I have gone through the said decision, and fin through the said decision, and find that the ratio laid down in the said d that the ratio laid down in the said judgment is squarely applicable to the case of the appellant. In its judgment is squarely applicable to the case of the appellant. In its judgment is squarely applicable to the case of the appellant. In its entirety, the appellant has duly established that it has fulfilled all the entirety, the appellant has duly established that it has fulfilled all the entirety, the appellant has duly established that it has fulfilled all the conditions laid down u/s.10A of the Act and, therefore, the disallowance conditions laid down u/s.10A of the Act and, therefore, the disallowance conditions laid down u/s.10A of the Act and, therefore, the disallowance of claim u/s.10A of the Act of Rs.9,75,98,089/ of claim u/s.10A of the Act of Rs.9,75,98,089/- made by the AO is not made by the AO is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, the AO is directed to allow the claim of sustainable in law. Accordingly, the AO is directed to allow the claim of sustainable in law. Accordingly, the AO is directed to allow the claim of deduction u/s.10A the Act of Rs.9,75,98,089/ deduction u/s.10A the Act of Rs.9,75,98,089/-. Further, the deduction . Further, the deduction should have been computed only with refere should have been computed only with reference to the export turnover of nce to the export turnover of Rs.44,53,04,978/-, which pertains exclusively to the STPI , which pertains exclusively to the STPI-registered unit registered unit eligible for deduction u/s.10A. Hence, the grounds No.1 to 4, 9 &11.i& eligible for deduction u/s.10A. Hence, the grounds No.1 to 4, 9 &11.i& eligible for deduction u/s.10A. Hence, the grounds No.1 to 4, 9 &11.i& 11.vi of appeal are allowed 11.vi of appeal are allowed…..”

our attention was drawn to the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dilip our attention was drawn to the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dilip our attention was drawn to the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dilip

Kumar, so as to drive home the point that due process of law is required to be followed Kumar, so as to drive home the point that due process of law is required to be followed Kumar, so as to drive home the point that due process of law is required to be followed

for claiming any deduction exemption by a t for claiming any deduction exemption by a tax payer.

Appellate Authority as his decision is based upon true understanding of the facts of the Appellate Authority as his decision is based upon true understanding of the facts of the Appellate Authority as his decision is based upon true understanding of the facts of the

case and interpretation of law. We have noted that in assessee’s own case for case and interpretation of law. We have noted that in assessee’s own case for case and interpretation of law. We have noted that in assessee’s own case for

immediately preceding Assessment Year i.e. AY immediately preceding Assessment Year i.e. AY-2009-10, a similar addition was 10, a similar addition was

made by the AO. The matter travelled up to this Tribunal which had remanded the made by the AO. The matter travelled up to this Tribunal which had remanded the made by the AO. The matter travelled up to this Tribunal which had remanded the

issue back to the ld. AO for readjudication. The ld. AO upon reconsideration, allowed for readjudication. The ld. AO upon reconsideration, allowed for readjudication. The ld. AO upon reconsideration, allowed

the assessee deduction u/s 10A on exports sales made through Indus BPO. We have ee deduction u/s 10A on exports sales made through Indus BPO. We have ee deduction u/s 10A on exports sales made through Indus BPO. We have noted that no distinguishment of facts have been pointed out by the ld. DR for the noted that no distinguishment of facts have been pointed out by the ld. DR for the noted that no distinguishment of facts have been pointed out by the ld. DR for the Revenue of present year with those of AY 2009 Revenue of present year with those of AY 2009-10. Therefore, for the purposes of 10. Therefore, for the purposes of consistency, no different view can be taken in AY 2010 rent view can be taken in AY 2010-11 and to the extent, the order 11 and to the extent, the order of the ld. CIT(A) rests on a firm footing. of the ld. CIT(A) rests on a firm footing. 8. We have also noted that Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Metal Closures Pvt. We have also noted that Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Metal Closures Pvt. We have also noted that Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Metal Closures Pvt. Ltd. 102 taxmann.com 72, Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the cas Ltd. 102 taxmann.com 72, Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Tata Elxsi and e of Tata Elxsi and in the case of International Stones India 95 taxmann.com 287 have held that eligibility in the case of International Stones India 95 taxmann.com 287 have held that eligibility in the case of International Stones India 95 taxmann.com 287 have held that eligibility of deduction u/s 10A does not gets vitiated even if the proceeds are received through of deduction u/s 10A does not gets vitiated even if the proceeds are received through of deduction u/s 10A does not gets vitiated even if the proceeds are received through intermediaries. Similar view has been taken by Co intermediaries. Similar view has been taken by Co-ordinate Benches of this Tribunal nches of this Tribunal and of Hon’ble Pune Tribunal in a plethora of decisions adjudicated by them on and of Hon’ble Pune Tribunal in a plethora of decisions adjudicated by them on and of Hon’ble Pune Tribunal in a plethora of decisions adjudicated by them on identical facts. 9. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that the assessee was rightly Accordingly, we are of the considered view that the assessee was rightly Accordingly, we are of the considered view that the assessee was rightly entitled for allowance of deduction u/s 10A and that the con entitled for allowance of deduction u/s 10A and that the consequent relief granted by sequent relief granted by ld. CIT(A) was in order, requiring no interference at this stage. The appeal of the ld. CIT(A) was in order, requiring no interference at this stage. The appeal of the ld. CIT(A) was in order, requiring no interference at this stage. The appeal of the Revenue raised through its grounds of appeal is dismissed. Revenue raised through its grounds of appeal is dismissed. 10. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 22nd May, 2026. Order pronounced in the open court

Sd/- Sd/- [ANUBHAV SHARMA ANUBHAV SHARMA] [AMITABH SHUKLA AMITABH SHUKLA] JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MEMBER Dated: 22.05.2026 f{x~{tÜ f{x~{tÜ f{x~{tÜ f{x~{tÜ