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

Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore vs. M/S Fidelity Business Services India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and revenue are partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 575/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Mar 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.575/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S. Fidelity Business Services India Circle-3(1)(1), Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru. Vs. Pinehurst, Embassy Golf Links Business Park, Off Intermediate Ring Road, Bengaluru-560071. Pan:Aaacf 6175 E Appellant Respondent C.O. No.24/Bang/2017 (In It(Tp)A No. 575/Bang/2016) Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Fidelity Business Services Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, India Pvt. Ltd., Circle 3(1)(1), Bengaluru-560071. Vs. Bangalore. Pan:Aaacf 6175 E Cross Objector Respondent Revenue By : Shri. Muzaffar Hussain, Cit (Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Assessee By : Shri. G. C. Srivastava, Shri. Uma Shankar, Advocates Date Of Hearing : 13.02.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.03.2020 O R D E R Per Shri A.K.Garodia, Am This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue & The C. O. Is Filed By The Assessee & These Are Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 29.01.2016 For Assessment Year 2011-12 Passed By The Ao Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 As Per The Directions Of Drp.

For Appellant: Shri. G. C. Srivastava, Shri. Uma Shankar, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri. Muzaffar Hussain, CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)

M/S Maxim India Integrated Circuit Design Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes allowed

ITA 1305/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Mar 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.1305/Bang/2011 Assessment Year : 2007-08 M/S. Maxim India Integrated Circuit Income Tax Officer, Design Pvt. Ltd., Ward–12(1), #132/133, West Wing, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Bengaluru. Domlur Post, Off Old Airport Road, Bengaluru – 560 037. Pan : Aaacm 9437 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Padam Chand Khincha, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Pradeep Kumar, Cit (Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 24.02.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.03.2020 O R D E R Per A. K. Garodiathis Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee & The Same Is Directed Against The Assessment Order For The Assessment Year 2007-08, Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. This Appeal Was Already Decided By The Tribunal As Per Its Order Dated 29.09.2020 & Thereafter, The Assessee Moved A Miscellaneous Petition (Mp) & As Per The Mp No.63/Bang/2019 Dated 01.11.2019, This Tribunal Order Was Recalled By The Tribunal For A Limited Purpose For Adjudicating Additional Grounds Of Appeal. Hence, Now We Have To Decide Only The Additional Ground Raised By The Assessee Which Reads As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri. Padam Chand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 32