IBM DAKSH BUSINESS PROCESS SERVICES PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2666/DEL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 March 2020AY 2009-105 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT agreed that Ground No. 4.1 was not adjudicated and was a mistake apparent from the record. The Tribunal recalled its order to adjudicate this ground and allowed it in favor of the assessee, directing a corresponding reduction in total turnover.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed a miscellaneous application seeking rectification of a previous ITAT order, as one of its grounds (Ground No. 4.1) was inadvertently not adjudicated. This ground pertained to the AO's failure to reduce telecommunication charges from total turnover when recomputing deduction under Section 10A.

What were the issues?

Whether a ground of appeal inadvertently omitted from adjudication by the ITAT can be rectified. Whether telecommunication charges should be reduced from total turnover for Section 10A deduction calculation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “Friday”: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI R.K. PANDA & SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr.Advocate

Heard together (2 matters)

MA No. 72/Del/2017
ITA No.2666/Del/2014

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

This miscellaneous application has been preferred by the assessee and seeks partial rectification of this Tribunal’s order in 2009-10 wherein vide order dated 5.7.2016 the Tribunal had inadvertently not considered assessee’s ground No. 4.1. Ground No. 4.1 of the assesee’s appeal reads as under:

4.1 Ld. AO erred in law in reducing telecommunication charges of Rs. 251,278,420/- only from the export turnover and not making any corresponding reduction in the total turnover while recomputing the deduction under section 10A of the Act.

2.

It has been contended in the miscellaneous application that the assessee had contended before the Bench that this ground was covered in favour of the assesee by the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Genpact India vs. ACIT (reported in 203 taxman 632) and had prayed that on application

MA No. 72/Del/2017 Concentrix Daksh Business Process Securities vs DCIT IBM Daksh Business Process Services Pvt. Ltd. of this judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court there would have been no adjustment to the claim of deduction u/s 10A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 since the exclusion of communication expenses from export turn-over as well as the total turn-over would have remained the same.

3.

The Ld. AR, while supporting the miscellaneous application, has also relied on the objections made by the assessee before the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel and the case laws paper book filed before the Bench. It has been prayed that the order of the Tribunal be rectified to the effect that ground No. 4.1 of the asseseee’s appeal be adjudicated.

4.

Per contra, the Ld. Sr. DR has supported the order of the Tribunal and has submitted that there is no mistake apparent on the face of the record.

5.

Having heard both the parties and after having perused the order of the Tribunal as well as the records, we agree with the contention of the Ld. AR that ground No. 4.1 as stated above has inadvertently not been adjudicated by this Tribunal in the above mentioned appeal and, therefore, there is a mistake apparent

MA No. 72/Del/2017 Concentrix Daksh Business Process Securities vs DCIT IBM Daksh Business Process Services Pvt. Ltd. from the record and the order of the Tribunal needs to be rectified to that extent. Accordingly, we recall the order for the limited purpose of adjudicating ground no. 4.1

6.

Thus, the Miscellaneous Application stands allowed.

7.

We now take up ground no 4.1 in assessee’s appeal for consideration. We have gone through the cited case laws and the objections raised by the assesee before the Ld. Disputes Resolution Panel and we have also considered the ratio of the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Genpact India vs. ACIT (supra) and we agree with the contention of the Ld. AR that this issue stands covered in favour of the assesee by the aforesaid judgement of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. Accordingly, while allowing ground No. 4.1, we direct the Assessing Officer to make a corresponding reduction of Rs. 251,278,420/- from the total turn-over while computing the deduction u/s 10A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Thus ground No. 4.1 stands allowed.

MA No. 72/Del/2017 Concentrix Daksh Business Process Securities vs DCIT IBM Daksh Business Process Services Pvt. Ltd.

8.

In the result the appeal of the assessee stands allowed.

9.

In the final result, the miscellaneous application as well as ground No. 4.1 stand allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 12th March, 2020.

More judgments on Section 10A

All 2,147 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →