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

Ac Nielesen Org-Marg P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 6(1), Mumbai

ITA 8799/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & C.N. Prasadआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./8799/Mum/2011,िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Nielsen (India) Private Limited Addl. Range-6(1) Aayakar Bhavan, 4Th Floor, M.K.Marg (Formerly Known As M/S. Acnielson Org- Marg Private Limited) Mumbai-400 020. 6Th Floor, Block C, Godrej It Park, 02 Vs. Godrej Business District, Lbs Marg, Phirojshanagar, Vikhroli (W) Mumbai-400 079. Pan:Aaacm 9279 L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By:Shri N.K. Chand Assessee By: S/Shri Saurabh Soparkar & Bandish Soparkar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 25.04.2016 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 27.05.2016 आयकर अिधिनयम,1961 की धारा 254(1)के अ"ग"त आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद" राजे" के अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- Challenging The Order Dated 24.10.2011 Of The Assessing Officer (Ao), Passed Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C (13) Of The Act,The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal.During The Course Of Hearing Before Us, The Authorised Representative (Ar)Stated That The Assessee Was Not Interested In Pursuing Ground Number Six, Considering The Smallness Of The Tax Effect.Therefore, Same Stands Dismissed As Not Pressed. 2.Assessee-Company Is A Wholly Owned Subsidiary Of Valcon, Which Is Part Of The Ac Nielsen Group. It Is Engaged In The Business Of Providing Customised Market Research Services Including Quantitative & Qualitative Consumer Studies, Print Media Measurement Services & Retail Measurement Services Which Includes Retail Tracking, Modeling & Analytics & Category Manage - Ment.It Filed Its Return Of Income On 29/10/2007, Declaring Total Income At Rs. 18.12 Crores.The Ao Completed The Assessment On 24/10/2011,Determining The Income Of The Assessee At Rs. 33.77 Crores.

For Appellant: S/Shri Saurabh Soparkar & Bandish SoparkarFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Chand
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 254(1)Section 92

Manish P. Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 16(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 853/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.853 /Mum/2016 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Manish P Shah,402, Rajendra बनधम/ Income Tax Officer 16(1)(2), Vihar, 12Th Khetwadi Cross Mumbai. Vs. Lane, Mumbai-400004 स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ Pan : Amxpso901R अपीऱार्थी ओर से / Assessee By Shri Navneet Kumar Arora प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Revenue By Shri Premanand J सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 12.5.2016 घोषणा की तायीख /Date Of Pronouncement :17.5.2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, A. M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 1.12.2015 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 30, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called As The Cit(A) For Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Facts In Brief Are That The Assessment Was Completed U/S 143(3) Assessing The Income Of The Assessee At Rs. 11,46,990/- As Against The Returned Income Of Rs.6,35,503/- & Penalty Proceedings Were Initiated U/S 271(1)( C ) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Act For Concealing The Particulars Of Income & Furnishing In Accurate Particulars Of Income. The Assessee, A Proprietor Of M/S

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 4