AO cannot curtail section 10AA deduction for SEZ unit merely due to higher margins without proving artificial arrangements

ITAT PUNE held that AO lacked jurisdiction to curtail section 10AA deduction for SEZ unit profits by invoking section 80IA(10) merely due to higher margins. Revenue failed to establish any arrangement between parties for earning extraordinary profits. The assessee provided high-end knowledge-based software development services to unrelated concerns after closing its STPI unit. Without proving artificial arrangements, higher margins alone cannot justify reducing deduction. However, common expenses totaling Rs. 17,53,709 were reallocated from STPI to SEZ unit, reducing eligible profits to Rs. 7.31 crores for section 10AA deduction calculation.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Jurisdiction under sections 80-IA(10) and 80-IA(8) read with section 10AA(9).
2. Computation of deduction under section 10AA.
3. Invocation of section 145(3).
4. Best judgment assessment under section 144.
5. Addition of income from undisclosed sources.
6. High margins of profits and denial of exemption under section 10AA.
7. Alternative computation of profits.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction under sections 80-IA(10) and 80-IA(8) read with section 10AA(9):

The assessee challenged the CIT(A)'s decision that the Assessing Officer (AO) correctly assumed jurisdiction under sections 80-IA(10) and 80-IA(8) read with section 10AA(9). The AO applied these provisions because the taxable unit showed losses while the exempt unit showed high profits. The AO believed the assessee was inflating expenses in the taxable unit and not claiming expenses in the exempt unit. The tribunal found that the AO did not establish a close connection between the assessee and its customers, nor did he identify any transfer of goods or services between the units. Thus, invoking these sections was unjustified.

2. Computation of deduction under section 10AA:

The assessee argued that if section 80-IA(8) read with section 10AA(9) applied, the deduction under section 10AA should be computed as specified in section 80-IA(8). The AO had computed the profits eligible for deduction by applying a net profit margin of 25%, which the assessee contested. The tribunal held that the AO's estimation was arbitrary and not based on specific findings or facts. The tribunal directed the reallocation of certain expenses to the SEZ unit, reducing the profits eligible for deduction under section 10AA.

3. Invocation of section 145(3):

The AO rejected the assessee's books of account under section 145(3) on the grounds that they were unreliable. The CIT(A) upheld this decision. However, the tribunal found that the AO did not provide specific discrepancies or issue a show-cause notice to the assessee before rejecting the books. Therefore, the tribunal found no merit in the invocation of section 145(3).

4. Best judgment assessment under section 144:

Assuming section 145(3) applied, the assessee argued that the AO did not compute the income in a best judgment manner as envisaged in section 144. The tribunal's decision on the non-application of section 145(3) rendered this issue academic.

5. Addition of income from undisclosed sources:

The AO added Rs. 5,53,02,457 as income from undisclosed sources, which the CIT(A) upheld. The tribunal found that the AO's estimation of profits was arbitrary and not based on any specific findings. The tribunal directed a reallocation of expenses, reducing the addition.

6. High margins of profits and denial of exemption under section 10AA:

The assessee explained the high margins were due to the nature of the business and the unique software developed. The tribunal found that the AO did not establish any arrangement between the assessee and its customers that resulted in extraordinary profits. The tribunal held that high profits alone do not justify the denial of exemption under section 10AA.

7. Alternative computation of profits:

The assessee suggested an alternative computation of profits on a pro-rata basis. The tribunal directed the reallocation of Rs. 17,53,709 in expenses to the SEZ unit, reducing the profits eligible for deduction under section 10AA to Rs. 7.31 crores.

Conclusion:

The tribunal allowed the appeal partly, directing the reallocation of certain expenses to the SEZ unit and reducing the profits eligible for deduction under section 10AA. The tribunal found no merit in the AO's invocation of sections 80-IA(10), 80-IA(8), and 145(3) and the addition of income from undisclosed sources. The tribunal's decision rendered some issues academic.

---