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

Micro Technologies (I) Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 10(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 6718/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6718/Mum/2013 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S./ Micro Technologies बिधम/ Acit-10(3), Room No.451, 4Th Floor, M.K. Road, (India) Limited 46/C, Sdf, Vs. Ttc Electronic Sadan-1 Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Midc, Mahape, Mumbai- 400020. 400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccm3348L (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Suman Kumar ( Dr) Assessee By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 11.07.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26.09.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 13.09.2013 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22 Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The Ay. 2009- 10 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Sustain. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “L. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. C1T(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts In Dismissing The Assessor'S Appeal Against The Order U/S 271 (1) (C) Passed By Assessing Officer (Ao) & In Upholding The Penalty

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar ( DR)
Section 10ASection 10A(3)Section 115JSection 11GSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)