TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (7) TMI 432
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was referred to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) under section 92CA for determination of the arms length price (ALP) after obtaining the approval of the CIT. The Addl. Director of Income Tax (TP)-II, Bangalore by order under section 92CA of the Act dt.15.4.2010 suggested Transfer Pricing adjustment of Rs. 9,67,89,370 on the issue of interest chargeable to its associated enterprises. In view of the transfer pricing adjustment, a draft order under section 144C of the Act was passed on 31.12.2010. The assessee company filed objections thereto before the DRP on 31.10.2011. The DRP vide directions dt.26.9.2011 referred to above did not accept the assessee's objections to the TP adjustment and directed the Assessing Officer to complete the assessment accordingly. The Assessing Officer accordingly passed the order of assessment on 29.9.2011. 3. In all the assessee company has raised 98 grounds. These will be disposed off in seriatum ground wise as under. 4. The grounds of appeal raised at S.Nos.1 to 4 are as under : "1. The Order u/s 143(3) dated 29.09.2011 of the learned Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as "the AO"), the Order u/s 92CA dated 15.04.2010 of the learned....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessment years. 9. The learned DRP erred in not deleting the transfer pricing adjustment merely on the ground that the issue is continuing from earlier years and that further appeals of the Department u/s 260A are pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. 10. Without prejudice, the DRP erred in not granting the safe harbor adjustment of +/- 5% of the ALP on the ground that the Department's appeal u/s 260A in the case of SAP Labs and others are pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka." 5.2 At the outset, the learned counsel for the assessee stated that the ground raised at S.No.10 regarding grant of safe harbor adjustment of / - 5 % of ALP is not being pressed in this appeal and is therefore accordingly dismissed as infructuous. 5.3 In respect of the grounds at S.Nos.5 to 9, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer erred in making a transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 9,67,89,370 based on the TPO's order and the confirmation of this by the DRP on the issue of interest on advances given by the assessee to its associated enterprises which were its wholly owned subsidiaries. It was submitted that the authorities below ove....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le confirming the finding of the Ld.CIT(A) had quoted the same and the relevant portion of which is reproduced as under: "6.4......................TP adjustment is possible only in cases where comparable uncontrolled transactions entered into between two enterprises are established. Unless such an uncontrolled transaction is identified, no ALP adjustment is possible. ..................................". 7.2. Respectfully following the said decision, we confirm the order of the learned CIT(A) on this count." Since the issue of adjustment for rate of interest chargeable in respect of interest free advances given by the assessee to its wholly owned foreign subsidiaries is identical to that of the earlier years, the Assessing Officer is directed to follow the directions given in the orders for earlier years in the assessee's own case for Assessment Year 2004-05 following the decision in ITA Nos.624 & 1178/Bang/2007 dt.31.10.2008 in the assessee's own case for Assessment Year 2003-04. 6.1 In grounds raised at S.Nos.11 to 14, the assessee has contended as under : Disallowance under section 14A 11. The learned AO, based on surmises and conjectures, erred in not accepting....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lowing decisions in support of this proposition : i) CIT Vs. United Colleries 203 ITR 857 (Cal) ii) CIT Vs. Hero Cycles 31 DTR 301 (P & H) iii) Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. DCIT 328 ITR 819 (Bom) 6.3 The learned Departmental Representative pleaded in support of the orders of the authorities below. 6.4 We have heard both parties and have perused and carefully considered the material on record and the judicial decisions relied on. In this issue of disallowance u/ 14A, the co-ordinate bench of the tribunal recently in the case of Syndicate Bank in ITA No.589 & 590/Bang/2010 dt.31.5.2012 for the Assessment Years 2004-05 and 2005-06 had remitted the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to follow the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. (supra). The Hon'ble High Court in this case held that the provisions of rule 8D of the Rules which have been notified with effect from March 24, 2008, would apply with effect from assessment year 2008-09. Even prior to Assessment Year 2008-09, when rule 8D was not applicable, the Assessing Officer had to enforce the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 14A.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ies, Madivala R&D Unit, Bangalore 3,52,13,538 7. Wipro Technologies, Madivala 5, Bangalore 1,92,15,127 8. Wipro Technologies, Gurgaon 7,65,96,000 9. Wipro Technologies, Mysore 1,62,39,627 SEZ Units: 10. Wipro Technologies, Sarjapur SEZ 4,96,15,183 11. Wipro Technologies, Manikonda SEZ 71,10,097 12. Wipro Technologies, Chennai ETL Building 1,18,99,020 Total 30,30,25,916 17. The learned DRP erred in issuing its directions based on a misunderstanding of the Order of the Hon'ble ITAT for AY 2004-05 wherein the decision was with regard to brought forward losses of 10A units whereas the case before the DRP was with regard to current losses of 10A units. 18. The learned DRP erred in not verifying the facts and erred in just following the earlier year's DRP directions. 19. The direction of the learned DRP is on the basis that the losses incurred by certain 10A units should be set-off against the profits earned by other 10A units which is in direct conflict with decision of the Supreme Court in 161 ITR 320 in the matter of set off of losses from the priority industry and accordingly viol....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the assessee that the directions of the DRP violated, the settled legal position as it is in direct conflict with the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case reported at 161 ITR 320 in the matter of set off of losses from priority industry. 7.3 The learned Departmental Representative supported the orders of the authorities below. 7.4 We have heard bothparties and perused and carefully considered the material on record. We find that the identical issue was considered by a co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for Assessment Year 2004-05 in ITA No.1072/Bang/2007 (supra), wherein the Tribunal confirming the finding of the learned CIT(A), at para 16.4 on pages 29 and 30 thereof, held as under : "16.4. We have carefully considered the contentions of the either parties and also carefully perused the order of the Hon'ble Tribunal. While deciding an identical issue, the Hon'ble Tribunal cited the following decisions - (1) [12.5.] ITA No: 669 & 804/Ban/05 dated: 22.3.2006 for the AY 2000- 01 in the case of assessee company wherein it was concluded that we direct the AO to allow set off of loss from 10A units against the other business income o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 22. The learned AO failed to give effect to Explanation 5 under section 32(1) wherein it is clarified that the provisions of sub-section 1 of section 32 shall apply whether or not the assessee has claimed the deduction in respect of depreciation in computing the total income. 23. The learned authorities below erred in proceeding on the basis that payment for imported software is in nature of royalty whereas in the facts and circumstances of the appellant, the payments did not attract the provisions of section 40a(i). 24. The learned authorities below, while making the disallowance of the deprecation on imported software used in-house, erred in not following the appellate orders in appellant's own case and the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tata Consultancy Services Ltd reported in 271 ITR 401. 25. The learned DRP erred in not upholding judicial discipline for the only reason that the Department has not accepted the orders of the ITAT on the issue and filed appeals u/s 260A, which are pending." 8.2 It is submitted that the assessee company claimed depreciation amounting to Rs. 7,38,83,507 on software purchased both locally and imported and used in its....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2006 for Assessment Years 2001-02 and 2002-03. It is seen from this order that this issue has been decided in favour of the assessee company by the Tribunal from Assessment Year 1998-99 onwards. We, therefore, respectfully following the decision of the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal for Assessment Year 2004-05 (supra) decide this issue in favour of the assessee. 9.1 The grounds of appeal at S.Nos.26 to29 are as under : "Allocation of Corporate Expenses 26. The learned AO erred in allocating expenses of Wipro Corporate to undertakings under section 10A even though the said expenses were not required to be allocated. 27. Without prejudice, the learned AO ought to have refrained from making an allocation of expenses of Wipro Corporate in an adhoc manner to the undertakings under Section 10A, ignoring the detailed submissions made by the assessee. 28. The learned DRP erred in stating that the AO has adopted a reasonable approach by way of allocating such expenditures on the basis of turnover overlooking the fact that no allocation was required in the first place. 29. The learned authorities below erred in making an allocation of expenses of Wipro Corporate to the u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orted the findings in the orders of the authorities below. 9.4 We have heard both parties and have perused and carefully considered the material on record. We find that the decision of the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal has in the assessee's own case in ITA No.1072/Bang/2007 (supra) has followed its earlier order in ITA No.651/Bang/94 for Assessment Year 1997-98 and in ITA Nos.426, 427, 468 & 469/Bang/2006 dt.3.5.2008. The relevant findings are extracted hereunder : "11.4. We have carefully considered the submissions of both the parties. We have also perused the decisions of the Hon'ble Tribunal on which the assessee company has placed strong reliance. The order of the Hon'ble Tribunal for the AY 97-98 in assessee's own case in ITA No:651/B/94 has decided the issue in favour of the assessee and relevant findings of the Tribunal is reproduced as under: "27.14. In view of these entire facts of the case and, in the absence of any specific finds by the authorities below that the expenditure is incurred for the various units claiming exemption/deduction in an artificial way of allocating the expenses and that too on surmises is not justifiable. We are, therefore of the opini....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 3 to Section 10 whereas a plain reading of the said Explanation does not lead to the conclusion that on-site development can only be understood as the development of software at client's premises. 31. The learned authorities below erred in not appreciating that the software development centres outside India were only facilitating the on-site development for the STP undertakings in India. 32. The learned DRP erred in stating that the assessee could not prove that the work carried out at the software development centres is an extension of software development which took place in the STP Units, which is contrary to the facts on record wherein the appellant had established that revenues from clients facilitated by the overseas software development centres were derived by the undertakings in software technology parks." 10.2 It was submitted by the learned counsel for the assessee that the Software Development Centres (SDCs) in Germany, Sweden, UK, Canada and Japan were set up by the assessee to facilitate the on-site development of software to specific customers. These, it is submitted, are the cost centres of Wipro Technologies Divisions and its subunits, viz. the undertakin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le to uphold the finding of the learned CIT(A). This issue is required to be remitted back to the assessing officer and the assessee will be required to file the relevant details as required by the assessing officer so that the assessing officer can ascertain the market value of such goods or services transferred by arriving at the profit of the eligible business." 24.3. Considering the above finding, we are of the firm view that this issue requires to be remitted back to the assessing officer and, accordingly, we are remitting back this issue to the assessing officer for necessary action as contemplated in the Tribunal's finding referred supra." On consideration of the above findings, we respectfully following this decision, are of the opinion that for this year also the issue requires to be remitted back to the Assessing Officer and accordingly do so with a direction to the Assessing Officer to follow the decision of Tribunal mentioned supra. 11.1 The grounds of appeal at S.Nos.33 to 38 are as under : "Other Income" not considered as part income eligible under Section 10A: 33. The learned AO erred in excluding aggregate interest income of Rs. 6,61,13,968/- from the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the undertaking' is used and there is no case for excluding any of the aforesaid sources of income for computing the deduction. Alternatively, the learned counsel for the assessee stated that it was submitted to the Assessing Officer that incomes have to be calculated on net basis because the related expenses were also debited to profit and loss account. It was submitted that the Assessing Officer concluded that the interest shown as miscellaneous income in each of the units has to be excluded from the profits since no borrowed funds were used in the business of STP units. The Assessing Officer also held that income from sale of scrap has no relation to software development activity and hence the same is to be excluded. The learned counsel for the assessee further submitted that the DRP applied the decision in the case of Liberty India Vs. CIT (317 ITR 218) (SC) rendered in the context of section 80 IB deduction and concurred with the finding of the Assessing Officer. 11.3 The learned Departmental Representative relied on the finding on this issue in the orders of the authorities below. 11.4 We have heard both parties and have carefully perused and considered the material on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t to be meted out to interest had been under dispute while computing profits of the business u/s 80HHC of the I.T.Act. as per Explanation (baa) to section 80HHC, 90% of the interest is not to be included in the profits of the business. The issue as to whether the interest to be treated as business income or income from other sources has been considered byvarious High Courts. The Delhi High court in the case of CIT v. Shriram Honda Power Equipment 289 ITR 475 has discussed such an issue at length. However, it was observed by the Delhi High Court that in a given case if the assessing officer has held the interest income as business income and this has not been challenged by the department in thereafter, then the question cannot be permitted to be reopened and the only question then will be if netting should be allowed. In the instant case the interest receipts have not been taxed as income from other sources. The assessing officer has also not discussed the nature of the interest income. It is not the case of the revenue that interest income is not business income of the undertaking eligible for deduction u/s 10A. under the circumstances, we hold that the learned CIT(A) was justified....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Income Tax Act which is a separate code in itself. The DRP noted that the assessee itself had not made this claim for deduction under section 10A in the return of income filed and finally held that since deemed exports do not actually involve export, the assessee is not eligible for deduction under section 10A thereby rejecting the assessee's claim. 12.3 The learned Departmental Representative supported the orders of the Assessing Officer and pointed out that the ITAT in the assessee's own case for Assessment Year 2004-05 had held the issue in favour of Revenue and against the assessee and sought dismissal of assessee's grounds on this issue. 12.4 We have heard both parties and have carefully perused and considered the material on record. We are not convinced with the submission of the assessee and find that the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in ITA No.1042/Bang/2007 in assessee's own case for Assessment Year 2004-05 had considered an identical issue and decided the issue against the assessee. The relevant extract of the finding in the Tribunal order at page 40 in para 22.1 is extracted hereunder : "22.1. The Hon'ble Tribunal in assessee's own case for the AYs 2001-02....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....further held that once this sum is not included in 'export turnover', then the same cannot be included in the 'total turnover'. The said decision was followed by the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for Assessment Year 2004-05 in ITA No.1072/Bang/2007. Respectfully following these decisions of the Tribunal(supra) on this issue, we are of the considered view that no interference is called for and accordingly dismiss the assessee's ground. 14.1 The grounds of appeal at S.Nos.43 to 48 and 57 to 58 are as under : "Communication link and other reimbursements: 43. The learned AO erred in concluding that the amount aggregating to Rs. 30,66,70,695/- should be excluded from export turnover though the revenues towards reimbursement of communication link expenses was not involving delivery of computer software as envisaged in Explanation 2 to Section 10A of the Act. 44. The learned AO erred in concluding that the amount aggregating to Rs. 163,90,23,556/- accounted under heads such as asset reimbursements, travel reimbursements, and other reimbursements should be excluded from the export turnover by stating that from its very description, the amount is not consideration received....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....are. The assessee submitted that it realized in convertible foreign exchange for the export of computer software accounted under various heads viz., assets reimbursement, travel reimbursements, incentive awards and other reimbursements and deductions under section 10A, 10B and 10AA of the Act were computed by the assessee including the said amounts in the 'export turnover' of the undertakings. The assessee also received communication link reimbursements in convertible foreign exchange as a component in the realization of the sales price for the computer software exported. The assessee submitted to the Assessing Officer that the nomenclature of the reimbursement is only representative of the customers having paid the price for the computer software developed and delivered in terms of identified expenses which are reimbursed pursuant to the contract of sale of computer software and that the amounts realized in convertible foreign exchange by way of reimbursements and incentive rewards are to be included as part of 'export turnover'. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer dd not concur with the assessee's claim and held that reimbursements and incent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....port of computer software outside India. 50. The learned DRP in giving its directions and the learned AO have erred fundamentally in as much as before making an exclusion of any item, it was necessary to determine whether there was an inclusion of the item in the first place. 51. The learned authorities below erred in proceeding with a presumption that expenses are embedded in the export turnover whereas in appellant's case there is no dispute that the items sought to be excluded are business expenditure incurred in foreign currency for on-site development of computer software (including services for development of computer software) which were not specifically included in turnover. 52. The learned AO alternatively should have excluded the said sum from the expenditure incurred in undertakings eligible for deduction under Section 10A. 53. Without prejudice, the learned AO ought to have carried out similar exclusions from total turnover as well. 54. The learned authorities below ought to have held that total turnover is nothing but an aggregation of export turnover as defined in clause (iv) of Explanation 2 under Section 10A and other turnover. 55. Without prejudic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ble for deduction under Section 10A on the premise that the sale proceeds were not remitted into India within 6 months from the end of the previous year as provided in section 10 A(3). The learned AO overlooked the fact that the application for extension of time was filed with the competent authority. 60. The learned DRP and the learned AO erred in refusing to accept the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 204 ITR (St.) 9 read with 193 ITR 71 (Punjab) wherein filing of application would tantamount to extension of time in the absence of rejection of the same. 61. The learned DRP erred in stating that relaxation provided by exim policy cannot be extended to Income Tax provisions. 62. Without prejudice, it is submitted that the receipt of sale proceeds of earlier years may be allowed for this year as part of export turnover." 16.2 The learned counsel for the assessee submits that the assessee company is aggrieved by the Assessing Officer's action in excluding the aggregate sum of Rs.65,69,39,304 received after 30.9.2007 from the 'export turnover' of undertakings eligible for deduction under section 10A of the Act. The Assessing Officer was of the view that since t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pro Technologies division to the various units in STPI and SEZ would result in the undertakings not being run independently. 67. The learned AO having sought and verified various unit-wise details of revenues and costs, which the appellant had furnished from the separate books of accounts maintained by it, committed a grave error in stating that separate accounts are being shown only to satisfy the Department for 10A deduction though the AO has not recorded any finding in this regard. 68. The learned AO erred in denying the deduction under Section 10A even after recognizing the fact that the undertakings were located in Software Technology Park and all the conditions under Section 10A(2) of the Act are met. 69. The learned AO erred in holding that subsequent license granted as expansion would not result in new undertaking. 70. The learned AO erred in not accepting that the legal position on commencement of business is applicable to each undertaking and not to the license underneath. 71. The learned AO erred in law in interpreting the provision of STPI against the appellant though no such interpretation is possible. 72. The learned AO erred in not noticing the dist....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rlier years assessment orders, the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim for deduction under section 10A in respect of other undertakings in Bangalore formed at various points in time as a result of expansion of business as if they were formed in 1993 for all the undertakings were located in STPs with original licences issued in 1992. In this manner, the learned counsel for the assessee submits, the Assessing Officer concluded that the assessee had only two undertakings at Bangalore and since these undertakings commenced operations prior to 1.4.1993, they were not eligible for deduction under section 10A of the Act. It is submitted that the Assessing Officer also was of the view that the undertakings are not independent since common expenses were allocated on the basis of turnover to all the units as per the method of accounting followed by the assessee and that the software development centres situated in various countries executed the work of all units. The Assessing Officer observed that the appellate orders granting relief to the assessee were contested by the Department before the High Court under section 260A and as the outcome thereof was not known, in order to keep the mat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessing officer was not justified in not allowing deduction u/s 10A. The Board vide Circular has explained the deduction will be permissible for ten years to the existing undertakings which were earlier allowed exemption u/s 10B, but that will be equally applicable for section 10A because both the sections are similar. Hence, we confirm the finding of the learned CIT (A) that the assessee is entitled deduction u/s 10A." 17.4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the issue and respectfully following the verdict of the Hon'ble Tribunal referred supra, we are of the considered view that the assessee company is entitled for deduction u/s 10A and, hence, we confirm the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on this count." 17.5 After careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of this issue and respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal, for Assessment Year 2004-05 (supra), we are of the considered view that the assessee company is entitled for deduction under section 10A and therefore direct the Assessing Officer to allow the same in accordance with law. 18.1 The grounds raised at 75 to 77 are as under : "Deduction under Section 80IB (Allocation of Corporate Over....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lly perused and considered the material on record. We find that the issue of allocation of corporate overheads to various business units has already been considered by the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for A.Y. 2004-05 (supra) and earlier years and has deleted the addition made by the A.O. on this count. At para 20.3 on page 38 of the said order the Tribunal has held as under : "20.3. We have carefully considered their submissions. We have respectfully perused the decision of Hon'ble Tribunal referred supra. The Hon'ble Tribunal, after analyzing an identical issue exhaustively with reference to submissions of either party and also considering the reasoning of the Ld.CIT (A) in depth, has concluded, thus - "33.7. In respect of allocation of expenditure, we have perused the order of the learned CIT(A). The assesse himself has allocated the overheads and such allocation has been made on the basis of sales turnover. Once such an allocation has been made by the assessee, then it was the duty of the assessing officer to point out that why the allocation is not correct. The assessing officer has simply ignored the details filed by the assessee and made the allocation. Without ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... trading activity of monitors and printers in addition to manufacture of computer hardware and held that as both monitors and printers are such devices that can be sold independently, therefore, the profit derived from sale of monitors and printers was to be excluded / reduced from the profits for computing the eligible deduction u/s. 80 IB of the Act. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the assessee that the DRP upheld the view of the Assessing Officer while disposing off the assessee's objections. 19.3 The learned Departmental Representative on his part supported the orders of the authorities below and prayed that they be upheld. 19.4 We have heard both parties and have carefully perused and considered the material on record. We find that a similar issue was considered by the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for A.Y. 2004-05 (supra) wherein the Tribunal following its earlier order for Asst. Years 2001-02 and 2002-03 at pages 43 and 44 at paras 25.3 and 25.4 have held the issue against the assessee as under : "25.3. Rival submissions were duly considered. The Hon'ble Tribunal in its order referred supra, has dealt with a similar issue in the assessee's own case....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er manufacture by the undertaking. It may be an integrated component of the computer. If there is no value addition without any change in name, character or and use, then such an activity cannot constitute manufacture or production. If the monitors have been sold as part of the computer without making any value addition by the industrial undertaking, then the profit derived from sale of such monitors cannot be considered as profit derived from the industrial undertaking. Therefore, the learned CIT (A) was justified in holding that profit from sale of monitor is not includible for computation of deduction u/s 80-IB." 25.4. Respectfully following the said decision, we are of the considered view that (i) profit from AMC cannot be included and (ii) the profit from sale of monitors cannot be included for computation of deduction u/s 80- IB." Respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal in the assessee's case for A.Y. 2004-05 (supra) and earlier years (supra), we are of the considered opinion and hold that the profit from sale of monitors and printers are not to be included in computation of deduction u/s.80 IB of the Act. These grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s requirement, we confirm the order of the Assessing Officer that rental income should be excluded in computing the deduction u/s. 80 IB of the Act. 20.5 As regards the issue of provision no longer required, it is the claim of the assessee that it arises on account of the method of accounting followed by the assessee company and it cannot be the case that a provision will reduce the profits of an undertaking but its subsequent reversal will not enhance such profits. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the view that no details of the said provision have been brought on record by the assessee to establish that it was in fact derived by the industrial undertaking and how it was so derived. The fact that it would reduce the profits or enhance it, is immaterial. In this view of the matter, we hold that the item 'provision no longer required' should not be included in the profits derived by the industrial undertaking and therefore would not be included in the profits eligible in computation of the deduction u/s. 80 IB of the Act. It is ordered accordingly. 21.1 The grounds raised at S.Nos.82 to 84 are as under : "Deduction under Section 80IC - computing the de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d that an identical issue of allocation of corporate over heads to various business units / undertakings for determining the profits for computing the deduction u/s. 80 IB of the Act has already been considered by the Tribunal in an earlier year in the assessee's own case in ITA No.1072/Bang/2007 for A.Y. 2004-05 (supra) in paras 20.3 and 20.4 thereof and has deleted the allocation of corporate overheads made by the Assessing Officer. Respectfully following this decision of the Tribunal on the issue of allocation of corporate overheads, we delete the allocation of corporate overheads made by the Assessing Officer to the soap unit at Baddi, Himachal Pradesh and the Glucovita unit while computing the deduction u/s. 80 IC of the Act. 22.1 In the ground raised at S.No.85, the assessee has challenged the Assessing Officer's action in excluding 'other income' of Rs.11,91,013 from forming a part of the income derived from the manufacturing activity at industrial undertaking at Baddi, H.P. for the purposes of computing the deduction u/s.80 IC of the Act. 22.2 We have heard both the learned counsel for the assessee and the learned Departmental Representative on the point. On car....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....all such expenses pertaining to the business carried on by it and therefore there is no need for allocation of expenses of Wipro Corporate to other business units. The Assessing Officer, however, was of the view that the profit of the unit is apparently over stated and the profit is arrived at without considering the corporate expenses allocable to it and in accordance with this view allocated a sum of Rs.8,23,157 to the SEZ unit. It is submitted that the DRP concurred with the view of the Assessing Officer and dismissed the assessee's objections. 23.3 The learned Departmental Representative supported the orders of the authorities below and prayed that these orders be upheld. 23.4 We have heard both parties and have carefully perused and considered the material on record. We find that the issue of allocation of corporate overheads to various business units has already been considered by a Bench of this Tribunal in the assessee's own case in the earlier years in ITA No.1072/Bang/2007 (supra) at para 11 to 11.4 at pages 15 to 17 thereof and has held in favour of the assessee deleting the allocation of corporate overheads made by the Assessing Officer. Respectfully following the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wn case for earlier years. According to the Assessing Officer, foreign tax credit is to be allowed only in respect of profits of those units in respect of which the deduction u/s.10A is not granted. The Assessing Officer held that foreign tax corresponding to profits taxed both in India and respective foreign countries is to be allowed as credit. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer allowed credit of Rs.62,85,17,644. The DRP concurred with the view of the Assessing Officer and rejected the assessee's objection. 24.3 The learned Departmental Representative supported the orders of the authorities below. 24.4 We have heard both parties and have carefully perused and considered the material on record. We find that a similar issue was considered by this Tribunal in ITA No.1072/Bang/2007 (supra) in the assessee's own case at paras 18 to 18.5 on pages 32 to 34 thereof. The finding of the Tribunal on this issue is at para 18.3 to para 18.5 of the said order and is as under : " 18.3. We have carefully considered the submissions of the Ld.A.R and also the Ld.D.R. in the matter. An identical issue had cropped up in the AY 02- 03 too. While considering the same, the Hon'ble Tribunal was....