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

Ibm India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 1151/BANG/2009[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2002-03 M/S. Ibm India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 12, Subramanya Commissioner Of Arcade, Income Tax, Bannerghatta Road, Circle 11 (1), Bangalore – 560 029. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaaci4403L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharath Rao, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vilas V Shinde, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 30-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of The Dated 3/11/2020 Passed By Hon’Ble Karnataka High Court In Ita No.392/2011. Hon’Ble High Court Admitted The Following Question Of Law Vide Order Dated 28/03/2012: “(I) Whether The Tribunal Was Correct In Holding That Whether The Appellate Authority Were Correct In Holding That Maintenance Of Separate Accounts For Stp Units & Non Stp Units Was Only Directory & Not Mandatory In Accordance With Rbi Conditions, Government Notification & Income Tax Act? (Ii) Whether The Appellate Authority Were Correct In Holding That Payments Made To Sub Contractors Who Have Separately Exported & Have Been Issued Foreign Inward Remittance Certificate & Have Also Claimed 10A Deduction Will Also Be Entitled To Double Deduction Under Section 10A Of The Act In Hands Of The Assessee?

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vilas V Shinde, CIT DR
Section 10A