2021 (9) TMI 277 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal allows deduction under Section 80-IC, directs reassessment.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, finding that the assessee had substantiated its claim for deduction under Section 80-IC with substantial evidence. The ... Exemption u/s 80-IC - Claim denied as no work was carried at the Baddi Unit - non fulfilling prescribed conditions of claiming deduction u/s 80-IC - HELD THAT:- Assessee is engaged the services of software professionals from sister concern as well as from outside agencies at different rates. The manpower is hired at ₹ 7000/- per day including travelling from sister concerns. This rate is ₹ 9500/- per day for outside agencies. The amount paid to independent professional was ₹ 22.91 Lacs whereas amount paid for manpower hired from sister concern was ₹ 50.10 Lacs - manpower was sourced from various streams viz. independent consultants directly hired by the assessee himself and the manpower hired from sister concerns and outside agencies. This fact has not been fully appreciated by Ld. CIT(A) and hence, the observations that the assessee supplied different names at different point of time and there were inconsistencies in the information supplied by the assessee. These employees were contractual employees whereas the details submitted before Ld. AO was with respect to employees directly hired by the assessee. In the above table, the assessee has specified the nature of work done, details of manpower as well as work sheets showing utilization of the professionals to carry out the work of software development. The sample copies of timesheets have also been placed. Upon perusal of the same, it could be seen that elaborate timesheets have been maintained for time spent by software professionals on various projects. The invoices raised by various agencies for supply of manpower to the assessee has also been placed. It could be seen that these agencies have supplied technical manpower to the assessee to carry out software development work at Baddi. There is no concrete material on record which would suggest that the assessee’s claim was not genuine and no work was carried at the Baddi Unit. The fact that the assessee had one internet connection / AC or inadequate computer facilities or the fact the bank accounts were not maintained at Baddi location is only a matter of perception and nothing conclusive could be borne out of those observations. Assessee had well substantiated its claim of deduction u/s 80-IC - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues Involved:1. Disallowance of exemption under Section 80-IC.2. Inconsistencies in names of employees.3. Evaluation of software development requirements.4. Nexus between income earned and business activity at Baddi.5. Authenticity of business activities at Baddi.6. Compliance with Section 80-IC conditions.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Disallowance of Exemption under Section 80-IC:The primary grievance of the assessee was the denial of deduction under Section 80-IC for its Baddi unit. The Commissioner (Appeals) disallowed the exemption despite acknowledging in Para 4.1.8 of the appeal order that the conditions prescribed under Section 80-IC were fulfilled. The assessee argued that the deduction was denied based on suspicion and not on concrete evidence, as all prescribed conditions were met.2. Inconsistencies in Names of Employees:The Commissioner (Appeals) noted inconsistencies in the names of employees submitted during different stages of the proceedings. The assessee provided different lists of employees at various points, leading to doubts about the authenticity of the claims. However, the Tribunal found that the employees were contractual and engaged from various agencies, which explained the variations in the lists provided.3. Evaluation of Software Development Requirements:The Commissioner (Appeals) questioned the manpower and infrastructure required for software development, suggesting that the assessee’s setup at Baddi was insufficient for genuine software development activities. The Tribunal, however, found that the assessee had provided detailed timesheets, invoices, and confirmations from clients and professionals, substantiating the software development activities at Baddi.4. Nexus between Income Earned and Business Activity at Baddi:The Commissioner (Appeals) concluded that there was no sufficient nexus between the income earned at Baddi and the business activities undertaken there. The Tribunal, however, found that the assessee provided substantial evidence, including purchase orders, invoices, and client confirmations, establishing that the income was genuinely earned from activities at the Baddi unit.5. Authenticity of Business Activities at Baddi:The Commissioner (Appeals) questioned the authenticity of the business activities at Baddi, suggesting that the unit was set up merely to claim tax benefits. The Tribunal, however, found that the assessee had provided substantial documentary evidence, including rental agreements, service tax registrations, and customer confirmations, proving the genuineness of the business activities at Baddi.6. Compliance with Section 80-IC Conditions:The Tribunal noted that the assessee fulfilled all the prescribed conditions under Section 80-IC, including the commencement of business operations within the specified period and deriving profits from eligible business activities. The Tribunal found that the assessee had well substantiated its claim for deduction under Section 80-IC and directed the Assessing Officer to recompute the assessee’s income accordingly.Conclusion:The Tribunal allowed the appeals, finding that the assessee had substantiated its claim for deduction under Section 80-IC with substantial evidence. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to recompute the assessee’s income in accordance with the order. The appeals for the subsequent assessment years (2012-13 to 2014-15) were also allowed based on the same findings.