ITAT decision: Appeals partly allowed for 2002-03, 2003-04. Deduction u/s 10A upheld. Bad debts issue remitted.

The ITAT partly allowed the Revenue's appeals for the assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04 but dismissed the appeal for 2004-05. It upheld the deduction u/s 10A for all years. The issue of bad debts written off was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for further examination and quantification.

---

---

Issues:
1. Claim of deduction u/s 10A for the assessment years 2002-03, 2003-04, and 2004-05.
2. Allowance of deduction on account of bad debts written off.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Claim of deduction u/s 10A
- Assessment Year 2002-03:
- The Revenue contended that the new STPI unit was formed by splitting up the existing business, thus not fulfilling the conditions for deduction u/s 10A.
- CIT(A) found no evidence of splitting up/reconstruction, as the activities were carried out at the client premises in South Korea.
- CIT(A) relied on the judgment in Bajaj Tempo Ltd. case, stating that setting up a new unit in leased premises did not constitute splitting up of an existing business.
- ITAT agreed with CIT(A), citing Circular No.694 clarifying that on-site development is covered by the exemption scheme, thus allowing the deduction u/s 10A.

- Assessment Year 2003-04:
- The Revenue raised the same issue of deduction u/s 10A, which was already decided in favor of the assessee for the previous year.
- ITAT confirmed the CIT(A)'s order allowing the deduction u/s 10A for this assessment year as well.

- Assessment Year 2004-05:
- The only issue raised was the deduction u/s 10A, which was upheld by the CIT(A) and subsequently by the ITAT.
- The ITAT dismissed the Revenue's ground and upheld the deduction u/s 10A for this assessment year.

Issue 2: Allowance of deduction on account of bad debts written off
- The assessing authority disallowed the deduction claimed by the assessee for bad debts written off.
- ITAT clarified that the amount not realized by the assessee did not qualify as bad debts as the client acknowledged liability for a lesser amount.
- ITAT set aside CIT(A)'s order allowing the deduction for bad debts written off, stating that only the unrealized part of the bills should be considered as business loss, subject to verification by the Assessing Officer.

In conclusion, the ITAT partly allowed the appeals filed by the Revenue for the assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04, while dismissing the appeal for the assessment year 2004-05. The ITAT upheld the deduction u/s 10A for all the assessment years and remitted the issue of bad debts written off back to the Assessing Officer for further examination and quantification.

---