TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (10) TMI 1121
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o the order of the Tribunal, 2. First we will deal with M.A. No. 151/Hyd/13 filed by the assessee. 3. It has been averred in the Miscellaneous Application that while deciding ground Nos. 7 & 8 raised by the assessee in its appeal, the Tribunal had remanded the issues raised in the aforesaid grounds to the Assessing Officer for fresh determination. It is further stated that since factual submissions & judicial precedents in relation to the issues raised in Ground Nos. 7 & 8 as well as in Ground No. (ii) were already submitted before the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A) during the course of proceedings before them and since the authorities concerned have passed their respective orders after considering factual submissions and judicia....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nch. The learned AR, therefore, submitted that non-consideration of the order of the coordinate bench on identical issue constitute a mistake apparent on the face of the record as envisaged u/s 254(2) of the Act. In support of such contention, the learned AR relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. Vs. CIT, [2007] 295 ITR 466 (SC). 5. In so far as the issue raised in Ground No. 8 relating to reimbursement of expenditure amounting to Rs. 33,96,032/- from the export turnover while computing deduction u/s 10A of the Act is concerned, the learned AR also advanced similar argument as was advanced in case of the issue raised in Ground No. 7 & (ii). 6. The learned DR, on the other hand, submit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e charges from the export turnover without deducting them from total turnover while computing deduction u/s 10A of the Act. It is a fact on record that for the AY 2003-04, the ITAT, Hyderabad Bench in assessee's own case in ITA No. 757/Hyd/2006 dated 29/02/2008 considering identical issue has held that telecommunication charges is to be reduced from export turnover as well as total turnover while computing deduction u/s 10A of the Act. The aforesaid decision of the coordinate bench though was cited before the Tribunal at the time of hearing, however, as it appears, was not considered while deciding the issue in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. (supra) held that no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....penditure by Virtusa Corpn., USA (Rs. 3,81,47,701/-), Virtusa UK (P) Ltd. (Rs. 42,88,632/-) and Virtusa (P) Ltd., Colombo (Rs. 2,57,09,133/-), aggregating to Rs. 6,81,45,466/- as part of the export turnover, the same is also not includible in the total turnover." 11. On a perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal dated 24/08/2012 (supra), it is found that while deciding the departmental appeal, the Tribunal has recorded its finding in paras 26 & 27 of the order. However, it appears that Ground No. (ii) has not been adjudicated by the Tribunal while deciding the appeal. Non consideration of the ground raised by the department is a mistake apparent on the face of the record, hence, we rectify the same by adjudicating the aforesaid ground r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....de India. He, therefore, held that such expenses has to be reduced from export turnover while computing deduction u/s 10A. The CIT(A), however, held that since the expenses are in the nature of reimbursement, no profit element is embedded therein and, therefore, the same has to be reduced both from export turnover and total turnover for the purpose of computing deduction u/s 10A of the Act. The CIT(A) also took similar view in respect of reimbursement of expenses by Virtusa Corporation, at USA, UK, and Colombo aggregating to Rs. 6,81,44,566/-. By holding that it should be reduced both from export turnover as well as total turnover for the purpose of computing deduction u/s 10A of the Act. 13. We have heard the submissions of the parties an....