ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 5(2), CHENNAI vs. PLY TECHNOLOGY PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2792/CHNY/2017Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 April 2018AY 2011-123 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the order passed under Section 263 by the PCIT was set aside by the ITAT, the consequential order of disallowance had no basis. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to the deduction.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a 100% EOU exporting computer software, claimed deduction under Section 10B. The Assessing Officer disallowed this deduction. The CIT(A) allowed the assessee's appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance of deduction under Section 10B was valid when the order under Section 263, which led to the disallowance, was set aside.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10B,Section 143(3),Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY & SHRI S. JAYARAMAN

Hearing: 05.04.2018Pronounced: 09.04.2018

आदेश/ O R D E R

PER S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

The Revenue filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Chennai in dated 30.08.2017 for assessment year 2011-12.

2.

M/s. Ply Technology Solution Pvt. Ltd., the assessee, is an 100% EOU company exporting computer software. In the assessment made u/s. 143(3)

:-2-: ITA No: 2792/Chny/2017 r.w. 263 for assessment year 2011-12, the Assessing Officer disallowed deduction claimed u/s. 10B and completed the assessment. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal and the CIT(A) allowed the appeal. Aggrieved, the Revenue filed this appeal.

3.

We heard the rival submissions. The assessee is a 100% export oriented unit exporting computer software. Its assessment for assessment year 2011-12 was completed u/s. 143(3). That assessment order was subject matter of an action u/s. 263, the PCIT set aside the order u/s. 263.

Consequently, the AO disallowed the deduction claimed by the assessee u/s. 10B. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). Before the CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the order passed by the PCIT u/s. 263 was set aside by the Hon’ble ITAT in its order in dated 27.07.2016, allowed the assessee’s appeal and granted deduction u/s. 10B as claimed by the assessee. Therefore, the assessee prayed for relief u/s. 10B.

The CIT(A) following the order of the ITAT, supra, allowed the appeal. When order passed u/s. 263 is set aside, the consequential order passed based on the order u/s. 263 has no basis. In the facts and circumstances, we do not find any merit in the Revenue’s appeal and hence, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.

4.

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.

:-3-: ITA No: 2792/Chny/2017

Order pronounced on Monday, the 09th day of April, 2018 at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 10B

All 1,217 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →