TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal ruling on exclusion of telecommunication expenditure, disallowance under section 14A, and appeal outcomes.</h1> <h3>Asstt. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Company Circle II (3), Chennai Versus iNautix Technologies India P. Ltd.</h3> Asstt. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Company Circle II (3), Chennai Versus iNautix Technologies India P. Ltd. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Exclusion of telecommunication expenditure from export turnover while computing deduction u/s 10A without corresponding exclusion from total turnover.2. Disallowance u/s 14A of the Act.3. Grounds of appeal not adjudicated by the learned CIT(A).Summary:Issue 1: Exclusion of telecommunication expenditure from export turnover while computing deduction u/s 10A without corresponding exclusion from total turnoverThe Assessing Officer excluded 30% of telecommunication expenses incurred outside the country from the export turnover. The ld. CIT(A) upheld this exclusion. The assessee argued that if telecommunication expenditure is excluded from export turnover, it should also be excluded from total turnover. The Tribunal referred to the decision in ITO vs Sak Soft Ltd., [2009] 30 SOT 55 (Chennai)(SB), which held that items excluded from export turnover should also be excluded from total turnover. The Tribunal confirmed the exclusion of Rs. 40,62,697/- from export turnover but allowed the assessee's alternate contention to exclude the same from total turnover, following the principle of parity as upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs Lakshmi Machine Works, 290 ITR 667(S.C).Issue 2: Disallowance u/s 14A of the ActThe Assessing Officer disallowed Rs. 70,55,114/- as expenditure attributable to earning exempt dividend income by invoking Rule 8D. The ld. CIT(A) held that Rule 8D was applicable from assessment year 2008-09 onwards and estimated the disallowance at 5% of the dividend income, reducing it to Rs. 13,53,635/-. The Tribunal, following the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in M/s Simpson and Co. Ltd vs DCIT, restricted the disallowance to 2% of the gross dividend income, modifying the ld. CIT(A)'s order.Issue 3: Grounds of appeal not adjudicated by the learned CIT(A)The assessee raised additional grounds before the ld. CIT(A) which were not adjudicated. These grounds included issues related to the computation of deduction u/s 10A, disallowance u/s 14A, depreciation on computer software and electrical installations, computation of education cess, and levy of interest u/s 234B. The Tribunal restored these grounds to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication as per law, after allowing reasonable opportunity of hearing to both parties.Conclusion:The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, and that of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced on Friday, the 05th of April, 2013, at Chennai.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
