TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (9) TMI 920
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the numerator and denominator in the light of the Special Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Sak Soft Ltd., 121 TTJ 865. 3.2 The issue was considered by the Special Bench of the Tribunal, Chennai in the context of section 10A and it was held that such adjustment made in the export turnover must be made in the total turnover as well, for it is essential to maintain parity of variables. The Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) has accepted the claim of the assessee, placing reliance on the above decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal, which is binding on him. We do not find any merit in the contention raised by the Revenue on this issue. This ground is rejected. 3.3. The next ground is that the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) has erred in directing the Assessing Officer to delete the disallowance of managerial remuneration of 1 percent made on work in progress, on the ground that the assessee should be given credit for disallowances in subsequent years. The assessee bills for the work in progress after the approval of the clients and as a consequence reverses the earlier entry passed in its books of account. It is in addition to the above reversal that the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n this matter was considered in first appeal, the assessee argued at length that the finding of the Assessing Officer is erroneous in the facts of the case and there is nothing to be taken into consideration under section 28(iv). After hearing the detailed submissions of the assessee company, the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer, to which a remand report was furnished by the Assessing Officer. In the remand report dated 28-1-2010, the assessing authority himself has stated that where amalgamation is authorised by the High Court, the balancing figure on the asset side of the balance sheet takes the character of goodwill, which cannot be taxed. All the details relating to the computation of the figure, like the High Court order, the way the goodwill was arrived at and the details of other items of balance-sheets of both amalgamating and amalgamated companies were placed both before the assessing authority and the Commissioner of Income- tax(Appeals). In the light of the above stated remand report, the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) deleted the addition. 4.3. We do not find any merit in the ground raised by the Revenue in the pre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....02-03. 5.4 The next ground of the Revenue is that the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) has erred in deleting the disallowance of PF contribution by both employer and employee on the ground that the payments were made before the due date of filing the return of income. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. P.M. Electronics, 313 ITR 161, has held that where such payments were made before the due date for filing of the return, such amounts are deductible in computing the taxable income. The Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) has granted relief, relying on the above decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. The order of the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) is upheld. 5.5 The last ground raised in the present appeal is against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) deleting the interest levied under section 234D of the Act. The Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) has rightly deleted the levy of interest in the light of the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Ekta Promotors Ltd., 113 ITD 719. 5.6. The appeal filed by the Revenue for the assessment year 2003-04 in ITA No.1528(Mds)/2010....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e. 7.3 So also, the issue relating to the disallowance of interest on diversion of funds has already been decided against the Revenue in appeals for the earlier assessment years, as discussed above. 7.4 The last issue raised by the Revenue is that the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) has erred in holding that the assessee is eligible for deduction under section 10A, relying on the orders of the Tribunal in the case of M/s.Sofia Software Ltd. in ITA No.2797(Mds)/2005. M/s.Sofia Software Ltd. is the old name of the assessee company. In its own case the Tribunal has held for the assessment year 2000-01 that the assessee is entitled for deduction under section 10A. Therefore, this ground raised by the Revenue fails. 7.5. This appeal filed by the revenue for the assessment year 2006-07 is liable to be dismissed. 8. The next appeal to be considered is the one filed by the Revenue for the assessment year 2007-08 in ITA No.2056(Mds)/2010. 8.1. The first issue is that the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) has erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 5,61,55,040/- being expenses booked on work not completed. It is the case of the Revenue that the Commissioner of Income-t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e will consider the appeal for the assessment year 2007-08 in ITA No.1250(Mds)/2011. 10.1. The only ground raised by the Revenue is that the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) has erred in directing the assessing authority to recompute the exemption under section 10A by excluding the expenses incurred in foreign currency both in the numerator and denominator, following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Sak Soft Ltd., 121 TTJ 865. The Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) has rightly followed the Special Bench decision of the Tribunal in the above case and held that the adjustment must be made both in the export turnover as well as in the total turnover. There is thus no merit in the ground raised by the Revenue. 10.2. The appeal filed by the Revenue fails. 11. In the appeal filed by the Revenue for the assessment year 2008-09 in ITA No.1251(Mds)/2011 the first issue is that the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) has erred in holding that the assessee is entitled for the benefit of section 10A. This issue has already been decided against the revenue. Hence this ground of the revenue fails. {COURT}11.1.The second ground is against the direction of the Commissioner ....