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

Aditya Birla Minacs Worldwide Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(3), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 4602/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & Ram Lal Negiआयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./4602 & 4603/Mum/2014, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2005-06&2006-07 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/S.Aditya Birla Minacs Worldwide Ltd. Dcit, -8(1) (Formerly Known As Transworks Information Services Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan. M.K. Road (Now Known As Minacs Ltd.) Mumbai-400 020. Symphony It Park, 8Th, 9Th & 10Th Floor Vs. Chandivali Farm Road, Chandivali Andheri East, Mumbai-400 072 Pan:Aaact 1567 A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) आयकर वष" /Assessment Year: 2005-06&2006-07 आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./4469 & 4470/Mum/2014, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Dcit, -8(1)Aayakar Bhavan. Vs. M/S.Aditya Birla Minacs Worldwide Ltd. M.K. Roadmumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 072. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav-Dr Assessee By: Shri Ronak Doshi-Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 16.02.2017 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 16.02.2017 आयकर आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" अिधिनयम क" क" धारा क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Challenging The Orders Dated 18/03/2014 Of The Cit (A)-16 Mumbai,The Assessing Officer (Ao)And The Assessee Have Filed Cross Appeals For The Above-Mentioned Assessment Years (Ay.S.).Assessee-Company Is Engaged In The Business Of Information Technology Enabled Services.As The Issues Involved In Both The Years Are Common,So,A Single Order Is Being Passed.

For Appellant: Shri Ronak Doshi-ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav-DR
Section 10Section 10ASection 254(1)Section 72Section 80ASection 80B(5)

DCIT 8(1), Mumbai vs. Aditya Birla Minacs Worldwide P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 4469/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & Ram Lal Negiआयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./4602 & 4603/Mum/2014, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2005-06&2006-07 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/S.Aditya Birla Minacs Worldwide Ltd. Dcit, -8(1) (Formerly Known As Transworks Information Services Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan. M.K. Road (Now Known As Minacs Ltd.) Mumbai-400 020. Symphony It Park, 8Th, 9Th & 10Th Floor Vs. Chandivali Farm Road, Chandivali Andheri East, Mumbai-400 072 Pan:Aaact 1567 A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) आयकर वष" /Assessment Year: 2005-06&2006-07 आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./4469 & 4470/Mum/2014, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Dcit, -8(1)Aayakar Bhavan. Vs. M/S.Aditya Birla Minacs Worldwide Ltd. M.K. Roadmumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 072. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav-Dr Assessee By: Shri Ronak Doshi-Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 16.02.2017 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 16.02.2017 आयकर आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" अिधिनयम क" क" धारा क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Challenging The Orders Dated 18/03/2014 Of The Cit (A)-16 Mumbai,The Assessing Officer (Ao)And The Assessee Have Filed Cross Appeals For The Above-Mentioned Assessment Years (Ay.S.).Assessee-Company Is Engaged In The Business Of Information Technology Enabled Services.As The Issues Involved In Both The Years Are Common,So,A Single Order Is Being Passed.

For Appellant: Shri Ronak Doshi-ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav-DR
Section 10Section 10ASection 254(1)Section 72Section 80ASection 80B(5)