ASST CIT 9(3), MUMBAI vs. WIPRO TECHNOLOGY SERVICES LTD, MUMBAI

These are the four cross appeals filed for the A.Y. 2010-11 and 2011-12 on similar grounds and therefore, disposed off by this common order.

ITA No. 5990/Mum/2014 is filed by the Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax-9(3), Mumbai, against the appellate order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-20, Mumbai, [the learned CIT (A)] dated 4th July, 2014, wherein the appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, 9(3), Mumbai, was partly allowed. Therefore, the learned Assessing Officer is in appeal against granting of the deduction under Section 10A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) to the assessee of ₹148,52,41,440/- under Section 10A of the Act.

The assessee is aggrieved in ITA No.7067/Mum/2014 against the appellate order wherein the disallowance under Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules was confirmed of ₹14,93,226/-.

For A.Y. 2011-12, the learned Assessing Officer is aggrieved by the appellate order passed by the learned CIT (A)-20, Mumbai dated 16th October, 2014, wherein the appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) of the Act by the learned Assessing Officer dated 20th March, 2014, was also partly allowed. The learned

The fact and circumstances for both the years are almost similar.

For A.Y. 2010-11, the assessee filed its return of income on 15th October, 2010, at a total income of ₹18,08,52,618/- after claiming deduction under Section 10A of the Act of ₹148,52,41,440/-. This return was selected for scrutiny. The learned Assessing Officer found that assessee is engaged in providing software related support and services primarily information technology software solutions, maintenance and technology infrastructure support services to other City Group Companies. Earlier the assessee was known as City Technology Services Ltd. The learned Assessing Officer found that assessee has claimed deduction under Section 10A of the Act and further identical deduction is disallowed in earlier years by the learned Assessing Officer, therefore, for similar reasons as held in earlier years, he disallowed the deduction under Section 10A of the Act. It was further found that assessee has received dividend from Mutual Fund of ₹262,81,268/-, which claimed as an exempt income. The assessee was asked to furnish the details of expenses incurred for earning the exempt income. The assessee replied on 20th March, 2013, that assessee has not incurred any expenditure for earning of exempt income. It was further

The assessee aggrieved with the assessment order preferred the appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA), who deleted the disallowance under Section 10A of the Act by following earlier year decisions deleting the similar disallowances by the learned CIT (A). As per the disallowance under Section 14A of the Act, the learned CIT (A) confirmed the expenditure disallowance of ₹14,93,226/-. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee was partly allowed.

Coming to the appeal of the learned Assessing Officer against disallowance of deduction under Section 10A of the Act deleted by the learned CIT (A). The learned counsel submitted that for A.Y. 2007-08, ITA No.3554/Mum/2012, and for A.Y. 2009-10 in ITA No.5477/Mum/2014, dated 3rd February, 2021, and 1st April, 2021, respectively covers the whole issue of deduction under Section 10A of the Act. The learned CIT (A) relied upon the order of his predecessor has been upheld by

The learned Departmental Representative submitted that assessee is not eligible for deduction under Section 10A of the Act on the facts and circumstances and the learned Assessing Officer has correctly disallowed the same.

We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the lower authorities. We find that identical issue arose and in case of the assessee for A.Y. 2007-08, wherein the co-ordinate Bench in ITA No.3554/Mum/2012, vide order dated 3rd February, 2021, and for A.Y. 2009-10, in ITA No.5477/Mum/2014, dated 1st April, 2021 has decided the issue in favour of the assessee.

No changes in the facts are put to our notice. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of the co-ordinate benches in assessee’s own case, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned CIT (A) in deleting the disallowance under Section 10A of the Act of ₹148,52,41,440/-. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal of the learned Assessing Officer for A.Y. 2010-11 in ITA No.5990/Mum/2014.

ITA No.2995/Mum/2014, filed by the learned Assessing Officer is also involving the same ground against the deletion of disallowance under Section 10A of the Act of ₹135,05,50,058/- . In absence of any change in the facts and circumstances, we respectively following the decision of the co-ordinate Bench as stated above confirmed the order of the learned CIT (A) and dismiss the appeal of the learned Assessing Officer.

The learned Departmental Representative vehemently submitted that when the assessee himself says that he has incurred expenditure, the explanation submitted by the

We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the lower authorities. We have also perused the orders of the co-ordinate Bench in assessee’s own case for earlier years. We find that for A.Y. 2010-11, the assessee has earned exempt income of ₹22,81,268/- and for A.Y. 2011-12, exempt income is ₹10,49,29,845/-. The assessee has not offered any disallowance under Section 14A of the Act. On question, the assessee submitted that it has not incurred any expenditure for earning exempt income. However, the assessee submitted calculation on time basis which can be considered on indirect expenditure for earning exempt income. The assessee gave computation of ₹2,64,460/- and ₹2,83,159/- for disallowance under Section 14A of the Act. Similar disallowances were offered by the assessee for earlier years. The co-ordinate Bench in assessee’s own case set aside the issue back to the file of the learned Assessing Officer to examine the claim of the assessee by incurring this expenditure for earning exempt income. In the order giving effect orders passed by the learned Assessing Officer he found that the disallowance offered by the assessee is adequate. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of the co-ordinate Bench in ITA No.99/Bangalore/2014, for A.Y. 2009-10, wherein the identical issue for A.Y. 2009-10 to 2014-15, was sent back. Therefore, with similar direction, we restore the issue back to the file of the learned Assessing Officer to examine the claim of the

Accordingly, all the four appeals are disposed off by this common order.