2016 (12) TMI 1887 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal allows revenue's appeals, remits matters for fresh assessment to ensure legal compliance

The Tribunal allowed the revenue's appeals, setting aside the CIT(A) orders for assessment years 2005-06 & 2006-07. The matters were remitted to the ... Deduction u/s 80JJAA - whether the new employees, being software engineers, were eligible for the said deduction as they did not come within the ambit of the term ‘workman’? - New workman employed for period of 300 days in relevant previous year are eligible for deduction u/s 80JJAA and no reference to new employees employed in the preceding year is made in the section - HELD THAT:- From the Para re-produced from the order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2010-11 [2016 (7) TMI 1012 - ITAT BANGALORE] we find that the Tribunal has followed the earlier Tribunal order in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2007-08 to 2009-10 and thereafter, the Tribunal has restored the matter back to the file of the AO for fresh decision in accordance with law. Accordingly, in the present year also, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue and restore this matter back to the file of the AO for fresh decision in accordance with law with same directions as were given by the tribunal in assessment year 2010-11. Issues involved:Appeals against CIT(A) order for assessment years 2005-06 & 2006-07 - Deduction u/s 80JJAA eligibility for new employees - Allowance of expenses without considering turnover during directors' sons' higher studies - Tribunal's decision in assessee's own case for other years - Restoration of matter to AO for fresh decision.Analysis:1. Deduction u/s 80JJAA eligibility: The revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in allowing the deduction based on a previous ITAT decision regarding the eligibility of new employees as 'workmen.' The issue revolved around whether software engineers qualified for the deduction under this section. The revenue argued that the section did not mention new employees employed in the preceding year, emphasizing the 300-day employment criterion. The Tribunal referred to its decision in the assessee's case for other years and remitted the issue back to the AO for fresh examination in line with the law.2. Allowance of expenses during directors' sons' higher studies: The revenue challenged the allowance of expenses without considering turnover variations before and after the directors' sons were sponsored for higher studies. The revenue argued that the CIT(A) overlooked that turnover had been increasing even before the sons' higher studies and disputed the correlation between the two employees' contribution and increased turnover. The Tribunal, following its previous decisions in the assessee's case, set aside the CIT(A) order and directed a fresh decision by the AO in accordance with the law.3. Tribunal's decisions in the assessee's own case: The AR of the assessee highlighted previous Tribunal orders favoring the assessee in different assessment years. The Tribunal acknowledged these past decisions and remitted the current matters back to the AO for fresh consideration, aligning with the legal provisions and directions given in the previous orders. The Tribunal's decision was consistent with the approach taken in the assessee's earlier cases.In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the revenue's appeals for statistical purposes, setting aside the CIT(A) orders for the assessment years 2005-06 & 2006-07. The Tribunal directed the matters to be reconsidered by the AO in line with legal provisions and previous Tribunal decisions in the assessee's own case for other years. The restoration of the matters to the AO for fresh examination aimed to ensure compliance with the law and consistent application of legal principles across different assessment years.