ITO, BANGALORE vs. SRI. NARENDRA REDDY THAPPETTA, BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 605/BANG/2015Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 August 2015AY 2010-113 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 upheld the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that the assessee's services, including data processing for legal matters like patent applications, qualified as Information Technology enabled services under the relevant circular and were eligible for deduction under Section 10A.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s decision to grant the assessee deduction under Section 10A of the Income-tax Act. The assessee argued that a coordinate bench had previously allowed this deduction for earlier assessment years in their own case.

What were the issues?

Whether the legal services provided by the assessee qualify as 'computer software' or 'Information Technology enabled products or services' for the purpose of deduction under Section 10A of the Income-tax Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCH A, BANGALORE

Before: SHRI. N. V. VASUDEVAN & SHRI. ABRAHAM P. GEORGE

For Appellant: Shri. S. V. Ravishankar, Advocate

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH 'A', BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. N. V. VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI. ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Assessment Year : 2010-11) Income-tax Officer, Ward -4(3(3), Bangalore ..Appellant v. Shri. Narendra Reddy Thappetta, No.158, Phase – One, Adarsh Palm Meadows, Whitefield Road, Ramagondanahalli, Bangalore 560 066 ..Respondent PAN : ACKPT2378J Assessee by : Shri. S. V. Ravishankar, Advocate Revenue by : Smt. Nandini Das, JCIT Heard on : 03.08.2015 Pronounced on : .08.2015 O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

In this appeal filed by Revenue its grievance is that CIT (A) held the assessee to be eligible for deduction u/s.10A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ in short).

2.

When the matter came up before us, Ld. Counsel for Assessee submitted that the issue of deduction u/s.10A of the Act had come up ITA.605/Bang/2015 Page - 2 before this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for A. Ys. 2006-07 and 2006- 07. As per the Ld. AR, this Tribunal had upheld the order of CIT (A) whereby it was given deduction u/s.10A of the Act. Ld. AR pointed out that for the impugned assessmet year also, CIT (A) had followed his own decision for A. Ys. 2006-07 and 2006-07.

3.

Ld. DR submitted that assessee was not entitled for deduction u/s.10A of the Act since it was simply providing legal services to its clients and not doing any type of business mentioned in Section 10A of the Act.

4.

We have perused the orders and heard the contentions. We find that CIT (A) had relied on the decision of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case in ITA.1550/Bang/2010, dt.03.01.2014. Relevant observations are reproduced hereunder :

“On question whether the nature of services rendered by the assessee fell within the definition of Computer Software as the definition of the term as given in Sect.10A and 80HHE of the Act, we find that the circular issued by the Board in Notification No.SO 890(E) dated 26.09.2000 is clearly applicable to the case of the assessee and the services rendered by the assessee can be categorised as per the notification issued by the Board as Bank Office Operations, Data Processing, Legal Databases or even under remote maintenance and the same is termed as Information Technology enabled products or services. The assessee is in the business of data processing for legal matters like making patent applications, etc. The work done by the appellant will come clearly under the category of data processing back office operation, legal data base and remote maintenance.” Thus it has been held by the coordinate bench that the services rendered by the assessee falls under the definition of computer software and it was eligible for deduction u/s.10A of the Act. Nothing was brought by the ITA.605/Bang/2015 Page - 3 Department to warrant a different view for the present assessment year. Assessee was carrying on the same business. We are therefore not inclined to interfere with the order of the CIT (A).

5.

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 7th day of August, 2015.

More judgments on Section 10A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →