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 allows Revenue's appeal, disallows deduction u/s.10B, finds DRP exceeded authority, stresses statutory provisions.</h1> <h3>Tieto India Private Limited, (pursuant to change in name from Tieto IT Services India Private Limited) Versus DCIT, Circle-7, Pune</h3> Tieto India Private Limited, (pursuant to change in name from Tieto IT Services India Private Limited) Versus DCIT, Circle-7, Pune - TMI Issues:1. Time-barred appeal by the Revenue.2. Disallowance of deduction u/s.10B.3. Direction by the DRP to examine claim u/s.10A.4. Jurisdiction of DRP to issue directions beyond its ambit.Analysis:1. The Revenue's appeal was found to be time-barred by 13 days, but the Tribunal condoned the delay upon being satisfied with the reasons provided by the Revenue. The appeal was admitted for hearing on merits.2. The assessee had initially declared a total income of &8377; 56,99,014/- and claimed deduction u/s.10B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. However, the Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed the deduction u/s.10B amounting to &8377; 7,91,16,965/-. The Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) upheld the AO's decision regarding this disallowance.3. The DRP directed the AO to examine the alternate claim of the assessee for deduction u/s.10A, despite the Revenue being aggrieved by this direction. The Tribunal analyzed the scope of directions by the DRP under section 144C of the Act and found that the DRP had exceeded its authority by directing the AO to re-examine the claim u/s.10A.4. The Tribunal determined that the DRP's direction for re-examination of the claim u/s.10A was in violation of the provisions of section 144C, as the DRP is not empowered to issue such directions. Despite finding merit in the assessee's claim for deduction u/s.10A, the Tribunal held that the DRP's direction was impermissible. The Tribunal set aside the order and remitted the matter back to the DRP for adjudication without involving the AO.In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed both appeals for statistical purposes, emphasizing the necessity for adherence to the statutory provisions governing the jurisdiction and powers of the DRP in issuing directions related to tax assessments.
TaxTMI 