Section 10A of the Income Tax Act

The decision most relied on for Section 10A is CIT v. Tata Elxsi Ltd. (349 ITR 98), cited in 818 of the 2,147 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 10A

CIT v. Tata Elxsi Ltd.
349 ITR 98 · 2012 · High Court
818
citing judgments

When computing deduction under Section 10A, if communication or telecommunication expenses are excluded from export turnover, they must also be excluded from total turnover to maintain consistency and apply the ordinary meaning of 'turnover' in context.

CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd.
391 ITR 274 · 2017 · Supreme Court
290
citing judgments

Deduction under Section 10A or 10AA of the Income-tax Act is computed on the profits of the eligible unit without first setting off losses from other units or non-eligible units. Conversely, losses incurred by an eligible unit are allowed to be set off against the assessee's other taxable business profits.

CIT v. Taikisha Engineering India Ltd.
370 ITR 338 · 2015 · High Court
252
citing judgments

The disallowance under Section 14A of the Income-tax Act, read with Rule 8D, cannot exceed the actual exempt income earned by the assessee in the relevant previous year. If no exempt income is earned, no disallowance under Section 14A can be made.

III v. HCL Technologies Ltd.
93 Taxmann.com 33 · 2018 · Supreme Court
245
citing judgments

When computing the deduction available under Section 10A of the Income-tax Act, communication expenses must be excluded from the total turnover for the purpose of calculating the eligible relief.

CIT v. Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd.
330 ITR 175 · 2011 · High Court
207
citing judgments

Disallowances made under various sections, such as for PF/ESIC contributions, result in an increase in business profits, and these enhanced profits are eligible for deduction under Sections 10A and 10AA. Similarly, gains from foreign exchange fluctuations directly linked to export sales are also eligible for deduction under Section 10A.

Rampgreen Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
377 ITR 533 · 2015 · High Court
196
citing judgments

Knowledge Process Outsourcing (KPO) service providers are functionally dissimilar to Business Process Outsourcing (BPO) or Information Technology Enabled Services (ITeS) providers and cannot be compared for transfer pricing purposes, even under the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM). Further, companies with significantly different business models, such as those with extensive subcontracting, should be excluded as comparables.

ITO v. TechSpan India (P) Ltd.
92 Taxmann.com 361 · 2018 · Supreme Court
194
citing judgments

Reassessment under Section 147/148 is invalid if it constitutes a mere change of opinion by the Assessing Officer without any fresh tangible material, especially after the assessee made a full and truthful disclosure during the original scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3).

CIT v. HCL Technologies Ltd.
404 ITR 719 · 2018 · Supreme Court
174
citing judgments

When calculating deductions under sections like 10A or 10AA, any expenses or items reduced from 'export turnover' in the numerator must also be reduced from 'total turnover' in the denominator to ensure consistent application of the deduction formula.

CIT v. S.K. Tekriwal
361 ITR 432 · 2014 · High Court
150
citing judgments

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act does not apply to disallow expenses when there is a short deduction of tax at source. This includes situations where TDS is deducted at a lower rate than required or under an incorrect section.

Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT
194 Taxmann 203 · 2010 · High Court
144
citing judgments

Section 14A(2) and (3) read with Rule 8D are constitutionally valid. Rule 8D applies prospectively from Assessment Year 2008-09, and for prior assessment years, the Assessing Officer must determine the expenditure related to exempt income under Section 14A(1) using a reasonable basis.

Judgments on Section 10A

Uni Design Jewellery Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1345/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhuni Design Elite Jewellery Vs. Dcit, Cc-1(2) Private Limited 906, 9Th Floor, Pratishtha 401 & 402, 4Th Floor Bhavan, Old Cgo Bldg. Tower- Ii, Seepz ++ M.K. Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400 096 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaack3499E Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant By : Vijay Mehta Respondent By : Lieder Panicker Date Of Hearing 26.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.07.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-47, Mumbai, Dated 17.03.2023 For A.Y. 2017- 18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Hon'Ble Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Made By The Ld. Ao By Not Considering Export Sale Realized After Limitation Of Time As Export Turnover & Consequently Restricting Deduction U/S 10Aa Of The Act By Rs.6,87,170 By Computing Deduction U/S 10Aa At Rs.5,66,02,032. The Appellant Prays That Export Sale Realized After Limitation Of Time Be Considered As Export Turnover & Deduction U/S 10Aa As Claimed By The Appellant Be Granted. The Appellant Craves, Leave To Add, Amend, Alter, Omit Any Of The Grounds Of Appeal Before Or During The Hearing Of The Appeal, If So Advised.”

For Appellant: Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Lieder Panicker
Section 10ASection 143(2)

Sasken Technologies Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITTPA 150/BANG/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(Tp)A No.150/Bang/2023 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 M/S.Sasken Technologies Limited The Assistant Commissioner #139/25, Amarjyothi Layout Of Income-Tax, Circle 6(1)(1) V. Ring Road, Domlur Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 071. Pan : Aaecs6424R.. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Padam Chand Kincha, Ca Respondent By : Sri.Sunil Kumar Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 16.05.2023 Date Of Hearing : 03.05.2023 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 25.01.2023 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act” For Short). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2010- 2011. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Providing Telecommunication, Software Services & Solutions To Various Entities. For The Assessment Year 2010-2011, The Return Of Income Was Filed On 11.10.2010 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.42,59,22,566 & Book Profit Of Rs.66,46,62,271. The Assessment Was Selected For Scrutiny & Mandatory Notices U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act Were 2 It(Tp)A No.150/Bang/2023. M/S.Sasken Technologies Limited.

For Appellant: Sri.Padam Chand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sunil Kumar Singh, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 260A