Tribunal upholds CIT(A)'s decisions, dismissing Revenue's appeal. Assessee's accounting practices crucial. Cross Objections rejected.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions, dismissing the Revenue's appeal on all grounds. The assessee's adherence to consistent accounting practices and fulfillment of statutory requirements were pivotal in the Tribunal's rulings. The Tribunal also rejected the Cross Objections (C.O.s) filed by the assessee as not pressed. The order was pronounced on December 2, 2019.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition made under Section 145A of the Income Tax Act.
2. Entitlement to deduction under Section 10A of the Income Tax Act.
3. Inclusion of foreign exchange gain in the claim of deduction under Section 10A of the Income Tax Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Deletion of Addition Made Under Section 145A:

The Revenue contended that the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 31,11,757 made under Section 145A of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) had incorrectly considered the closing balance of VAT and service tax, which the assessee had already accounted for in the audit report, making the adjustment revenue-neutral. The CIT(A) relied on the judgment in the case of Alpanil Industries Ltd. and Mahavir Aluminum Limited, concluding that no addition under Section 145A was warranted as the practice of including taxes in the valuation of stock, purchases, and sales had been consistently followed by the assessee. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s decision, noting that the assessee had been following the same method for several years, thus dismissing this ground of Revenue.

2. Entitlement to Deduction Under Section 10A:

The assessee claimed a deduction under Section 10A as an alternative to Section 10B, which was disallowed by the A.O. The CIT(A) granted relief to the assessee, noting that the assessee had been granted a license for setting up a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU) under the Software Technology Park (STP) scheme and had complied with all necessary conditions. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)’s decision, emphasizing that the assessee had been operating under the 100% EOU scheme since 2007 and had consistently claimed deductions under Section 10A in the past. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)’s order, thereby dismissing this ground of Revenue.

3. Inclusion of Foreign Exchange Gain in the Claim of Deduction Under Section 10A:

The A.O. had disallowed the deduction of foreign exchange gain, arguing that it was not income derived from exports. The CIT(A) overturned this decision, citing that the foreign exchange fluctuation gain was directly related to the export transactions and arose out of business operations. The CIT(A) referenced decisions from the Ahmedabad Tribunal and the Bombay High Court, which supported the inclusion of foreign exchange gains in the deduction under Section 10A. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s decision, drawing support from similar judgments by the Madras High Court and ITAT Delhi, confirming that the assessee was entitled to the deduction of foreign exchange gain under Section 10A. Consequently, this ground of Revenue was also dismissed.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions on all grounds. The assessee's consistent accounting practices and compliance with statutory requirements were key factors in the Tribunal's rulings. The Tribunal also dismissed the Cross Objections (C.O.s) filed by the assessee as not pressed.

Order Pronounced:

The order was pronounced in open court on December 2, 2019.

---