Section 10A deduction requires consistent turnover treatment, unit-wise profit computation, and no section 92C(4) restriction when ALP is self-determined.

For section 10A computation, telecommunication or uplinking charges excluded from export turnover must also be excluded from total turnover to maintain consistency. The substituted section 10A was applied to compute deduction on eligible unit-wise profits without first reducing losses of non-profitable units from profits of profit-making units. Deduction was also not to be restricted by invoking section 92C(4) where the arm's length price had been determined by the assessee. The Tribunal's order was upheld and the Revenue's challenge failed on all substantial questions of law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether telecommunication or uplinking charges reduced from export turnover were also to be reduced from total turnover while computing deduction under section 10A; (ii) Whether deduction under section 10A could be denied or restricted by setting off loss from non-profitable units against profit-making units; (iii) Whether deduction under section 10A was to be computed on the assessee's total income without setting off losses from non-profit-making units under the substituted provision; (iv) Whether deduction under section 10A could be computed on arm's length price by ignoring section 92C(4).

Issue (i): Whether telecommunication or uplinking charges reduced from export turnover were also to be reduced from total turnover while computing deduction under section 10A.

Analysis: The issue stood covered by the earlier decision on the meaning of export turnover and total turnover for section 10A computation, requiring consistency in the components used for both figures.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether deduction under section 10A could be denied or restricted by setting off loss from non-profitable units against profit-making units.

Analysis: The question was covered by the earlier ruling on the scope of the substituted section 10A and the manner in which eligible unit-wise profits are to be considered for deduction.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

Issue (iii): Whether deduction under section 10A was to be computed on the assessee's total income without setting off losses from non-profit-making units under the substituted provision.

Analysis: The substituted section 10A was treated as governing the deduction on eligible profits without adjustment by losses of other units in the manner suggested by the Revenue.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

Issue (iv): Whether deduction under section 10A could be computed on arm's length price by ignoring section 92C(4).

Analysis: The adjustment made by the Assessing Officer was found unsustainable because section 92C(4) was inapplicable where the arm's length price had been determined by the assessee, and the Tribunal had corrected that error.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal's order was upheld, and the Revenue's challenge failed on all substantial questions of law.

Ratio Decidendi: For section 10A computation, export turnover and total turnover must be treated consistently, eligible deduction is to be worked out on the proper profits of the undertaking under the substituted provision, and section 92C(4) cannot be invoked where the arm's length price is determined by the assessee.

---