Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA BENCH: AGRA
Before: SHRI A. D. JAIN, & DR. MITHA LAL MEENA
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH: AGRA BEFORE SHRI A. D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
I.T.A No. 343/Agra/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009-10)
Smt. Garima Mehta, W/o Shri Vs..ITO, Ward-1(2), Nitin Mehta, H-239, Madhav Gwalior. Nagar, Lashkar, Gwalior (M.P.) PAN: AIUPJ8270B (Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by Shri Mahesh Agarwal, CA. Respondent by Shri Waseem Arshad, Sr. DR.
Date of Hearing 15.05.2018 Date of Pronouncement 13.07.2018
ORDER PER, A. D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This is assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2009-10, taking the following grounds:
“1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law and in any view of the matter, the authorities below have erred in making and upholding the addition of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of alleged unexplained investment in business u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
I.T.A No. 343/Agra/2013 2
That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law and in any view of the matter, the authorities below have erred upholding the assessment of income of Rs. 7,61,255/- in place of income declared Rs.2,94,257/- applying the net profit rate of 90% on gross receipt of Rs.8,45,839/-.
That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law and in any view of the matter, Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in not deciding the ground of appeal related to considering the revised return filed on 21.10.2010 as non-est return.
That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law and in any view of the matter, the authorities below have erred in not allowing the exemption of Rs.40,79,438/- u/s 10A of the Act and further upholding the denial of said exemption.
That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law and in any view of the matter, the authorities below have erred in not allowing the rent expense of Rs. 75,000/- claimed by the appellant.”
At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee contends that he does not wish to press Ground No.5. Accordingly, Ground No.5 is rejected as not pressed.
I.T.A No. 343/Agra/2013 3
Apropos Ground No.1, the AO made addition of Rs.1 lac as investment u/s
69 of the IT Act, observing that the assessee had not disclosed her bank account
maintained with Bank of Baroda, wherein receipts of Rs.8,45,839/- stood credited
and which receipts were not declared in the books of account; that the assessee
could not furnish the names and addresses of the parties from whom this amount
was received, or the names and addresses of the parties to whom payments were
made from this account; that it is necessary for every business to have investment
money for running the business and for the undisclosed business, the assessee
would have invested money.
Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee stated that she had declared investment
of Rs.40,000/- in the business.
The ld. CIT(A), confirming the addition, observed that the investment of
Rs.40,000/- had been made by the assessee in her new unit, i.e., M/s Garima
Mehta; that she had not declared any investment for her existing business, the
income from which had been declared subsequently, i.e., after the filing of the
return of income.
The ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that the assessee is a software
engineer; that since 2005-06, she was involved in buying software from the market
and supplying the same to various local parties; that during the year under
I.T.A No. 343/Agra/2013 4
consideration, she also established an STPI Unit for providing online IT enabled services to M/s Google Inc. USA; that while filing her return of income, she could not include her income from the activity of trading in software, which was covered by the transactions in her account with Bank of Baroda; that her bank account with Bank of Baroda was not included in the regular books for the STPI Unit; that the AO wrongly made the addition in question merely on assumptions; and that the ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the same, whereas no actual investment, as presumed, stands proved.
On the other hand, the ld. DR has placed strong reliance on the impugned order.
The matter has been considered. The addition in question has been made u/s 69 of the IT Act. The provisions of section 69 are attracted only when the assessee has made investments which are not recorded in the books of account. In the present case, as rightly contended, no actual investment stands proved by either of the Authorities below as having been made by the assessee.
In this regard, in ‘Ashok Kumar Rastogi vs. CIT’, 59 Taxman 82 (All), it has 9. been held that where addition is made u/s 69 of the Act as unexplained investment without reference to any evidence or material, the findings on which are based on surmises and conjectures, the addition is not sustainable.
I.T.A No. 343/Agra/2013 5
In view of the above, the addition of Rs.1,00,000/- is deleted and Ground
No.1 is accepted.
Apropos Ground No.2, the assessee declared income from trading of
software on the basis of total receipts of Rs.8,45,839/-, credited in her bank
account with Bank of Baroda. The income was declared at Rs.2,94,257/- u/s 44AD
of the Act, after claiming expenses of Rs.5,51,582/-. The AO, however, was of the
opinion that the said receipts of the assessee were from a business similar to those
of the STPI Unit of the assessee, the business disclosed by the assessee, on which,
net profit had been declared at the rate of 90.93%. As such, applying a net profit
rate of 90% of the gross receipts of Rs.8,45,839/-, the AO worked out the income
at Rs.7,61,255/-.
The ld. CIT(A) observed that the nature of business in both the businesses of
the assessee, i.e., domestic and exports, was the same, since in both the businesses,
the assessee was dealing in software development. The assessment order, applying
the net profit rate of 90%, was, therefore, confirmed.
It has been contended on behalf of the assessee that the order under appeal is
erroneous inasmuch as the activities in both the businesses are entirely different;
that in her domestic business, the assessee was trading in software, whereas the
export business was of providing software development and IT enabled services;
I.T.A No. 343/Agra/2013 6
and that the assessee had declared income u/s 44AD of the Act from domestic trading, which stands accepted.
The ld. DR, per contra, has placed reliance on the impugned order. It has been submitted that there is no evidence of business at all and there are merely receipts. Therefore, according to the ld. DR, the rate on the disclosed receipts has correctly been applied on the undisclosed receipts as well.
In this regard, it is seen that it remains undisputed that whereas in her local business, the assessee was trading in software, in her export business, she was providing software development and IT enabled services. The two activities, as such, have no parity inter se. Obviously, therefore, as rightly contended, by the very difference in the natures of the two activities, the respective profit margins would also be different. In the domestic trading, it is the buyer’s bargaining power which is determinative of such margins, due to existence of numerous suppliers. On the other hand, the export involves IT enable services, which are client specific. These are complex services and the skills of the developer of the software and the bargaining acumen of the service provider, alongwith such services, are the factors which go to determine the profit margins involved in such exports. It is also noteworthy that the exports are specifically solely to M/s Google Inc. USA. Thus, the profit margins of both these activities are not at all equitable and they have
I.T.A No. 343/Agra/2013 7
wrongly been placed at par by the Taxing Authorities. Moreover, the income
declared by the assessee u/s 44AD of the Act stands accepted, not calling for any
further enhancement.
The Taxing Authorities have, thus, failed to appreciate the nature of the
activities carried out by the assessee and the profit has wrongly been enhanced to
Rs.7,61,255/-. This enhancement is, hence, is unjustified. The same is deleted.
Ground No.2 is accepted.
Coming to Ground No.3, the assessee had filed a revised return on
21.10.2010. Therein, the assessee had declared an amount of Rs.1,75,689/- as
income from interest. This revised return was not treated as a valid return by the
AO, observing that it had been filed after the original return had been processed
and notice for scrutiny assessment had been issued. The assessee raised challenge
by way of Ground No.5 before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A), however, refused to
adjudicate this ground, observing that the issue had been rendered merely
academic, the assessee having herself declared income of Rs.1,75,689/-, which
stood assessed as such.
The assessee contends that since the AO has initiated penalty proceedings on
this income of Rs.1,75,689/-, the action of the AO in treating as invalid, the revised
return filed, would impact the penalty proceedings.
I.T.A No. 343/Agra/2013 8
The grievance of the assessee cannot be said to be ill based. The AO has initiated penalty proceedings. The revised return has not been accepted. So, the issue ought to have been decided by the ld. CIT(A) on merit. For the purpose, the matter is now remitted to the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) shall afford due and adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee to support her case and then decide the issue on merits, in accordance with law.
Concerning Ground No.4, during the year under consideration, the assessee setup an STPI Unit at Gwalior. Income of Rs.40,79,438/- earned from this unit was claimed as exempt u/s 10A of the IT Act.
The AO disallowed the assessee’s claim u/s 10A on the basis that the 21. assessee did not fulfill the conditions contained in section 10A. It was observed that the business premises of the assessee was not situated either in a Software Technology Park, or in a Special Category Zone, as required by the provisions of section 10A(1) (A); that the assessee was not doing any business from this premises; that the assessee having split up her business, she did not fulfill the conditions of section 10A(2)(ii); that she did not bring the sale proceeds in convertible foreign exchange, thereby violating the provisions of section 10A(3); that the assessee had not submitted any application for setting up her unit, to the Department of Information Technology; that the unit may be approved in a
I.T.A No. 343/Agra/2013 9
separate earmarked area of the premises taken on lease from private parties for five
years, but the unit of the assessee did not fulfill this condition; that the assessee had
failed to explain receipt of advance payments from her client, M/s Google Inc.,
USA, from June, 2008 to October, 2008, when her STPI Unit got approved only on
21.11.2008 and the order from Google was also confirmed in the month of
November, 2008.
While confirming the assessment order, the ld. CIT(A) observed that
Gwalior, where the unit had been set up, had not been notified as an STP by the
Ministry of Commerce and Industry; that the assessee had not obtained approval
from the Inter-Ministerial Committee of the Department of Information
Technology; that the lease period for the leased premises in the case of the assessee
was three years and not five years, as per requirement; that it was a case of
reconstruction and splitting up of the earlier business of the assessee, since the
assessee was a software developer and had carried on business even prior to
setting up the unit; and that the requirement was to receive the export proceeds in
convertible foreign currency, whereas the receipts of the assessee were in rupees.
Heard. As per section 10A, the unit should begin to produce computer
software on or after 1.4.1994 in a Software Technology Park. The unit should not
I.T.A No. 343/Agra/2013 10
be formed by the splitting up or reconstruction of an already existing business. The sale proceeds are to be brought in into India in convertible foreign exchange.
‘Software Technology Park’, as per Explanation-2 to section 10A, is a park 24. set up in accordance with the Software Technology Parks Scheme notified by the Government of India.
‘Convertible Foreign Exchange’, as per the said Explanation-2 to section 25. 10A, is foreign exchange which is for the time being treated by the Reserve Bank of India as convertible foreign exchange for the purpose of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 and any Rules framed thereunder, or any corresponding law for the time being in force.
As per the Authorities below, the unit of the assessee has been set up in Gwalior, which is not notified as an STP. In this regard, Notification no. S.O. 388(E), dated 30.04.1995, which was placed before the Authorities below, has been filed at APB 150-154. Para 2.2 thereof read as follows:
“2.2 A Software Technology Park (STP) may be set up by the Central Government, State Governments, public or private sector undertakings or any combination thereof. An STP may be an individual unit by itself or it may be one of such units located in an area designated as STP Complex by the Department of Electronics.
I.T.A No. 343/Agra/2013 11
2.3 The scheme is administered by the Department of Electronics, Government of India, through Directors of respective Software Technology Parks which form part of the Software Technology Parks of India, a society established by the Department of Electronics, Government of India and registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. An application in the prescribed format for establishing a Software Technology Park unit may be submitted to the Chief Executive of the Software Technology Park Complex along with the details of the software project. Such application will be considered by an Inter-Ministerial Standing Committee (IMSC) constituted under the Chairmanship of the Secretary, Department of Electronics, Government of India, notified vide Gazette No. 294 (G.S.R. No. 526(E)), dated 13th August, 1991, published in sub- section (i) of section 3 of Part II of the Extraordinary Gazette of India and reconstituted by the Notification No. S.O. 177(E), dated 22nd February, 1993, published in Part II, section 3, sub-section (ii) of the Extraordinary Gazette of India.” 27. This notification pertains to the Software Technology Parks (STP) Scheme. As per this notification, an STP may be a new unit by itself, or it may be one of such units located in an area designated as STP complex by the Department of Electronics. The notification notifies an amended Software Technology Parks
I.T.A No. 343/Agra/2013 12
(STP) Scheme. It has been issued by the Central Government u/s 3(1) of the
Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. The Scheme is
administered by the Government of India in the Department of Electronics. It is
administered through the directors of respective Software Technology Parks of
India, a society established by the Department of Electronics.
Section 10A of the IT Act requires, in Explanation-2 (vii), that to be a
Software Technology Park, such a park should be set up in accordance with the
Software Technology Parks Scheme notified by the Government of India. Thus, for
the purposes of section 10A of the Act, if a unit is notified as an STP, that would
suffice.
APB 68-69 is a copy of permission of the Software Technology Parks of
India, granted to the assessee, extending to the assessee, all facilities and privileges
admissible under the STP Scheme for setting up a 100% Export Oriented Unit
under the STP Scheme, at H-239, Madhav Nagar, Opposite A.G. Office, Laskar
Gwalior-474002 (M.P.), in the State of Madhya Pradesh, for the development
/manufacture and export of computer software/ IT enabled services. This
permission was placed before both the Authorities below.
I.T.A No. 343/Agra/2013 13
Thus, the unit of the assessee stands duly approved at Gwalior, as an STP Unit. Therefore, the assessee has duly complied with the conditions of section 10A(2)(i)(b) read with Explanation-2(vii) to section 10A.
In ‘Xerox India Ltd. vs. ACIT’, 127 TTJ 84 (Del), the Tribunal was 31. considering the Ministry of Commerce’s Notification no.33/(RE)/92-97, dated 22.03.1994, notifying the Software Technology Parks (STP) Scheme, which was amended by the above Notification No. S.O. 388(E), dated 30.04.1995. It was held that where the unit situated at particular location is notified as an STP (as in the present case), allowability of exemption u/s 10A is attracted.
In ‘ITO vs. M/s Par Web Solutions, Mumbai’, order dated 15.07.2011 (copy 32. placed on record) passed by the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in ITA No.3403/Mum/2010, for A.Y. 2007-08, ‘Xerox’ (supra) was followed in favour of the assessee to hold that exemption u/s 10A of the Act is available, if a unit at a particular location is notified as an STP.
The ld. CIT(A) has held that the unit of the assessee has not been granted approval from the Inter Ministerial Committee of the Department of Information and Technology of the Government of India.
I.T.A No. 343/Agra/2013 14
CBDT Instruction No.1/2006, dated 31.03.2006 has been placed on record. It was furnished before the Authorities below as well. The relevant portion thereof read as follows:
“3. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, the Ministry of Commerce notified the Software Technology Park Scheme wherein it was provided that a Software Technology Park may be set up by the Central Government, State Government, Public or Private Sector Undertakings or any combination thereof. An STP may be an individual unit by itself or it may be one of such units located in an area designated as STP Complex by the Department of Electronics. The scheme was required to be administered by the Department of Electronics, Government of India, through Directors of respective Software Technology Parks which form part of the Software Technology Parks of India (STPI), a society established by the Department of Electronics and registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. An application in the prescribed form for establishing a STP unit was required to be submitted to the Chief Executive of STP Complex along with the details of the Software project. Such application was to be considered by an Inter-Ministerial Standing Committee (IMSC) constituted
I.T.A No. 343/Agra/2013 15
under the Chairmanship of Secretary, Department of Electronics, Government of India.
Subsequently, vide Notification No. 4/(RE-95/92-97) dated 30th April, 1995 issued by the Director General (Foreign Trade), Ministry of Commerce, in exercise of powers conferred in sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, notified the amended STP Scheme. Para 2.3 of the aforesaid notification provides that the scheme is administered by the Department of Electronics, Government of India, through Directors of respective STPs which form part of the STPI, a society established by the Department of Electronics and registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. An application in the prescribed format for establishing a STP unit may be submitted to the Chief Executive of STP Complex along with the details of the software project. Such application will be considered by an Inter-Ministerial Standing Committee constituted under the Chairmanship of Secretary, Department of Electronics.
Instances have been brought to the notice of the Board that a large number of units registered/approved by the Directors of the STPI are claiming deduction under section 10A whereas the STP scheme requires approval by the Inter-Ministerial Standing Committee of the
I.T.A No. 343/Agra/2013 16
Department of Electronics. Accordingly, the cases of such claimants have been reopened by the field authorities.
The matter has been examined in consultation with the officers of the Department of Information Technology (earlier, Department of Electronics). In view of the ambiguity in the legal status of the approval by Director of STPs, the Inter-Ministerial Standing Committee will meet to consider the approvals by Director of STPs issued in the past. Therefore, with a view to avoid infructuous demand raised in assessment and reassessment of the assessees claiming deduction under section 10A, it has been decided that the claim of deduction under section 10A of the Income-tax Act, shall not be denied to STP units only on the ground that the approval/registration to such units has been granted by the Directors of Software Technology Parks. However, it has to be ensured that all other conditions specified in section 10A are fully satisfied before allowing any such claim.”
The CBDT, thus, duly recognized the position that approval was, to start with, to be given by the Inter Ministerial Committee of the Department of Information Technology of the Government of India, which position got changed by Notification No.4/(RE-95)/92-97, dated 30.04.1995 issued by the Director
I.T.A No. 343/Agra/2013 17
General, Foreign Trade, Ministry of Commerce, whereby the scheme was to be administered through the respective directors of STPI. Approval granted by the directors of STPI are, thus, due compliance of the Scheme. This position has remained oblivious to Authorities below and the assessee has wrongly been held to be in default on this score.
In ‘ CIT vs. Technovate and Solutions (P) Ltd.’, 354 ITR 110 (Del), the 36. above position has been appreciated, holding that the communication issued by the Ministry of Communication and Technologies makes it clear that approvals issued by the directors of STPI under the authority of the Inter-Ministerial Standing Committee are deemed to be valid, inasmuch as such directors were functioning under the delegated authority of the Inter-Ministerial Standing Committee and that so, the conditions stipulated u/s 10A(2) stood complied with.
The next objection against the assessee is that since the premises of the assessee was leased for three years, from a private party, she is not entitled for the benefit claimed. This objection also does not hold water. Firstly, there is no such condition contained in the provisions of section 10A. In the face of the approval granted to the unit, moreover, the entitlement is clear. The approval has wrongly been ignored. though the approval was granted after all considered, including the tenure of the lease, as contained in the lease agreement filed for obtaining the
I.T.A No. 343/Agra/2013 18
approval. Further, even the custom bonded ware house, located in the same premises, also stands approved, on the recommendation of the STPI, by the Custom Authorities. A copy of such approval is at APB 75-76, which fact has also been confirmed by the Joint Director, STPI, vide Certificate (APB-70) dated 17.11.2011, that is as follows:
“This is to certify that M/s Garima Mehta (Address: H-239 Madhav Nagar, Lashkar, Gwalior, M.P. – 474002 is a STP Unit registered with the STPI (LOP No. S/96/07-08 Dtd: 21.11.2008; LA Validity: 18.01.2014). M/s Graima Mehta is registered under the STP Scheme in November 2008 and since then complying with the STP Scheme & Policies of the submission of sales invoices, softex forms and Progress reports and has received the approved softex forms from STPI Indore. The M/s Graima Mehta has submitted the said documents upto July 2011. M/s Graima Mehta is set up in Gwalior and region comes under STPI – Noida Directorate, Sub-centre STPI – Indore. Further this is to certify that as per para 6.3.8 of Hand Book of Procedures (Vol.I), an EOU (STPI Unit) duly approved by Development Commissioner (Director STPI) can be set up in leased premises from private parties also.
Sd/-
I.T.A No. 343/Agra/2013 19
17.11.11 (Ravi Verma) Joint Director” 38. Accordingly, this objection of the Authorities below is also unjustified.
The ld. CIT(A) has also held that since even prior to setting up of the unit with STPI, the assessee was developing software, she has reconstructed and split up her earlier business, thereby rendering her claim to be in violation of section 10A(2)(ii).
As noted hereinabove, the two activities of the assessee are entirely different inter se. Earlier, she was providing software products locally. On the other hand, in her present business, she is exporting online services from her new unit to her specific sole client, M/s Google Inc., USA. Investment of Rs.40,000/- was made for the new activity. Manpower was employed. The business was carried on from a separate bonded customs area. All these facts go to establish beyond a doubt that there is no parity whatsoever between the two businesses of the assessee, that there is no violation of the provisions of section 10A(2)(ii) of the Act and that the objection raised is a result of non-appreciation of these facts by the Authorities below.
I.T.A No. 343/Agra/2013 20
In ‘ITO vs. DSM Soft P. Ltd.’, 115 TTJ 469 (Chennai), in facts similar to 41. those as arisen herein, it was held that where the new unit was set up with substantial investment and increase in a number of employees and the nature of service, it did not amount to splitting up or reconstruction of the existing business and the assessee was entitled to exemption u/s 10A.
The last objection against the assessee is that the export proceeds received by her were not received in convertible foreign currency, as provided under section 10A(3), but were brought in in India National Rupees.
Here again, the objection is misconceived. As per section 10A(3), ‘convertible foreign exchange’, according to Explanation-2(ii) to the section, is foreign exchange which is for the time being treated by the Reserve Bank of India as convertible foreign exchange for the purposes of the FERA, 1973, which was replaced by the FEMA, 1999. Section 2(n)(iii) of the FEMA defines, ‘Foreign Exchange’, as ‘drafts, travelers cheques, letters of credit or bills of exchange drawn by banks, institutions or persons outside India, but payable in Indian currency’. The stress, obviously, is on the last phrase contained in this definition. Again, it says ‘payable in Indian currency’. On this score itself, the objection is rendered unsustainable. Still, as per section 6 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, a cheque is a bill of exchange. Meaning thereby, that it is an instrument which can be
I.T.A No. 343/Agra/2013 21
exchanged for money. Convertible currency means currency that can be exchanged with another currency, for any purpose, without regulatory restrictions. Then Chapter 2 of the Exchange Control Manual of the RBI prescribes ‘permitted method of receipts’. Thus, the RBI itself recognizes and accepts the position maintained by the assessee, i.e., of bringing in her receipts in Indian currency. Further still, vide Notification No. FEMA14/2000-RB dated 03.05.2000, the RBI has also specified the manner of receipt in foreign exchange. As such, payment from any country other than a member country of the Asian Clearing Union, or Nepal, or Bhutan, can be received in rupees from the account of a bank situated in that country, or in any ‘permitted currency’. A copy of this Notification stands appended at APB 108-110.
So far as it concerns the assessee, the assessee submitted invoices (APB 124- 132) in foreign currency, i.e., US Dollar, on 25.01.2001, duly approved, alongwith SOFTEX Forms by the STPI. Proceeds against these invoices were received, as objected to by the Authorities below, in rupees, converted from US Dollars, from the bank account of the assessee’s client, M/s Google Inc.,USA, with Citi Bank N.A. The assessee has also placed on record, images (APB-133-141) of cheques obtained from the bank directly by the AO. In fact, the AO himself admits that the cheques were issued in Indian Rupees by Google Inc., the Foreign Company (AO, page 11, para 4). Still further, the FIRCs were also issued by Citi Bank, NA,
I.T.A No. 343/Agra/2013 22
certifying that payments received in INR were not out of non-convertible currency. Such Certificate is to be found at APB 142-148. Thus, obviously, the proceeds were out of convertible currency.
All considered, this objection too, does not go against the assessee so as to disentitled to her to the benefit extended by the provisions of section 10A.
Though the ld. DR has placed reliance on the following case laws, they are of no use since they pertain to the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, which are not in issue in the present case:
“i. ‘Ratnam & Co. vs. IAC’, 124 ITR 376 (Mad). ‘Zoom Communication’ ii. ‘B.A. Balasubramanian & Bros and Co.’, 20 Taxman 215 iii. (Mad). ‘K.P. Madhusudan vs. CIT’, IT Appeal/(Civil)/6465/2000 iv. (SC). ‘ACIT vs. Dr. Prakash Kanhaiyalal Kankaria’, ITA v. No.1645/Pun/2013 ( ITAT, Pune). ‘Madanlal Kishorilal Vs. CIT’,197 CTR 144 (Alld). vi. ‘Jayson Infrastructure India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO’, ITA No vii. 997/Bang/2015– (ITAT, Banglore). viii. ‘S.V.Angidi Chettiar’.
I.T.A No. 343/Agra/2013 23
‘M/s Nainu Mal Het Chand (All). ix. ‘Madhushree Gupta’, (Delhi). x. ‘Smt. Kaushalya’ (Bom). xi. ‘Bhagwan Agarwal’ (ITAT, Agra). xii. xiii. ‘Maharaj Garrage’, (Bom). ‘Sachin Arora’(ITAT, Agra) xiv. ‘CIT Vs Angidi Chettiar’, 44 ITR 739 (SC). xv. ‘Manjunath Cotton’. xvi. xvii. ‘B.A.Balasubramanian & Bros and Co.’, 20 Taxman 215 (Mad). xviii. ‘Gujrat Financial Services’. ‘Shyam Biri Works’. xix. ‘Sangam Enterprises’. xx. ‘Harish Hosiery Mart’. xxi. xxii. ‘Dilip Shroff’. xxiii. ‘Rajeev Kumar Gupta’,123 ITR 907 (All). xxiv. ‘Safina Hotels Pvt Ltd’, ITA No 240/2010 (Karn). xxv. ‘Madanlal Kishorilal vs. CIT’,197 CTR 144 (All).
I.T.A No. 343/Agra/2013 24
xxvi. ‘M/s Balwantrai & Co. Vs. CIT’, ITA No 41 of 1984 (All). xxvii. ‘M/s Londulal Raghuvir Prasad Vs. CIT’, IT Reference No. 181 of 1991 (All). xxviii. ‘M/s Acid & Chemical Co. vs. CIT’, ITA No 2159 – 2160/Ahd/2007 ( ITAT, Ahmedabad).
In view of the above, the grievance of the assessee is found to be correct,
and it is accepted. The assessee is entitled to her claim u/s 10A of the Act, which is
directed to be allowed.
In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 13/07/2018.
Sd/- Sd/- (DR. MITHA LAL MEENA) (A.D. JAIN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
*AKV* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT AGRA