ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. OPK-E-SERVICES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2772/DEL/2015Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 June 2018AY 2011-124 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal followed its own earlier decision for the assessment year 2010-11, which had dismissed the Revenue's appeal on identical issues. The second ground of appeal was rendered otiose as disallowing expenditure would increase profits, thus impacting the Section 10A deduction.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order allowing deduction under Section 10A and deleting an addition on repair expenses. The assessee argued that these issues were decided in their favour for earlier assessment years by the Tribunal.

What were the issues?

Whether the deduction under Section 10A was allowable and whether the addition on repair and maintenance expenses was justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘C’ BENCH,

Before: SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, & SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA

For Appellant: Shri Parveen Jindal, CA
Hearing: 13.06.2018Pronounced: 13.06.2018

PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER,

1.

This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi dated 25.02.2015 pertaining to assessment year 2011-12.

2.

The first grievance of the Revenue is that the ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to allow deduction of Rs. 68.29 lakhs u/s 10A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act']. The second grievance of the Revenue is that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 89,225/- made by the AO out of repair and maintenance expenses.

3.

At the very outset, the ld. AR pointed out that the issues raised by the Revenue have been decided in earlier A.Ys in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by the order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for A.Y 2010-11.

4.

The ld. DR could not bring any distinguishing decision in favour of the Revenue.

5.

We have carefully perused the orders of the authorities below. We find force in the contention of the ld. AR. An identical issue was considered and decided by the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in for A.Y 2010-11. Moreover, we find that while allowing the appeal of the assessee, the CIT(A) has followed the findings of his predecessor in A.Y 2009-10 and 2010-11. The relevant findings of the co-ordinate bench read as under:

3 “3. On consideration of the facts of the case in the light of the submissions of the parties, it is clear that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by order is the assessee as well as in the case of M/s. ONS Interactive Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (supra). The Assessing Officer disallowed deduction under section 10Afollowing his order for assessment year 2009-10 on identical facts. The learned CIT (Appeals) in assessment year 2009-10 allowed the deduction under section 10A to the assessee, subject to verification of the conditions of section 10A by the AO. Similar order passed in assessment year under appeal. The Assessing Officer in view of direction of the learned CIT (Appeals) and application of the assessee under section 154 of the I. T. Act vide order dated 9th June, 2016 after verifying the facts allowed deduction under section 10A of the I. T. Act to the assessee. The Departmental appeal for assessment year 2009-10 had already been dismissed. Since the Assessing Officer has already verified the facts and allowed deduction under section 10A, therefore, no grievance of the Department is left for consideration. It may also be noted that the Tribunal in the case of M/s. ONS Interactive Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (supra) also dismissed the Departmental appeal on identical issue. There is no merit in Departmental appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.

6.

Respectfully following the findings of the co-ordinate bench, we decline to interfere. Ground No. 1 raised by the Revenue stands dismissed.

7.

Disallowance of any expenditure would increase the profit thereby resulting into the deduction u/s 10A of the Act. Therefore, grievance raised vide Ground No. 2 becomes otiose.

8.

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in is dismissed.

The order is pronounced in the open court on 13.06.2018.

More judgments on Section 10A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →