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

Harland Clarke Holdings Software India Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 784/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 784/Mds/2015 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Harland Clarke Holdings Software The Deputy Commissioner Of India Private Limited, V. Income Tax, 2Nd Floor, Skcl Central Square -1, Company Circle 2(2), Unit-C35, Cipet Road, Chennai - 600034 Thiru-Vi-Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai - 600032 Pan : Aahcs4742D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Pathlavath Peerya, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15.12.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27.12.2016 आदेश आदेश /O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per N.R.S. Ganesan: This Appeal Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer Dated 18.02.2015 Consequent To The Direction Of Dispute Resolution Panel Dated 17.12.2014. 2. Shri N.V. Balaji, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Assessee Engaged In The Business Of Software Development, Content Development & Tutoring Services. The Assessing Officer Referred The International Transaction To The 2

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pathlavath Peerya, CIT
Section 10ASection 92C

Hinduja Global Solutions Ltd ( Formerly Known As Htmt Global Solutions Ltd), Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 4933/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Saktijit Deyआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 4933/Mum./2012 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007–08) Hinduja Global Solutions Limited (Formerly Known As Htmt Global Solutions Ltd.) 171, Hinduja House ……………. Appellant Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli Mumbai 400 018 Pan – Aaact1763A V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Circle–8(2), Mumbai आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 4950/Mum./2012 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007–08) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Circle–8(2), Mumbai V/S Hinduja Global Solutions Limited (Formerly Known As Htmt Global Solutions Ltd.) 171, Hinduja House ……………. Respondent Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli Mumbai 400 018 Pan – Aaact1763A निर्धाररती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Batik Poddar A/W Ms. Karishma Phatarphekar & Shri Harsh Shah रधजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri N.K. Chand सुिवधई की तधरीख / आदेश घोषणध की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing – 05.10.2016 Date Of Order – 16.12.2016

For Appellant: Shri Batik Poddar a/wFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Chand
Section 10A