TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (10) TMI 488
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pective appeals is condoned. 2. The applications are disposed of. ITA No. 607/2015 & 608/2015 3. These two appeals by the Revenue are under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("Act"). 4. At the outset, Mr. Kamal Sawhney, learned Senior Standing counsel for the Revenue states that page 6 of the memorandum of appeal in both appeals shows the wrong cause title. The cause title in each of these appeals should read as "Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax versus E-Funds International India Private Limited." 5. ITA No. 607/2015 is directed against the order dated 20th October 2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ("ITAT") in ITA No. 2004/Del/2006 for the Assessment Year ("AY") 2002-03. 6. ITA No. 608/2015 is directed against the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the Assessee claimed a deduction of Rs. 4,20,31,476 under Section 80HHE of the Act. After making other adjustments in terms of Section 115 JA of the Act, the book profit was declared as "nil" and no MAT was paid. The AO, however, noticed that no Auditor"s report as required by Section 80HHE(4) of the Act, was filed with return of income. 11. When a response was sought from the Assessee asking it to submit the Auditor"s report certifying the claim under Section 80HHE of the Act, the Assessee by a letter dated 16th September 2002, claimed that it was not required to furnish the Auditor"s report but if the AO so required, it would arrange for the same. Subsequently on 8th November 2002, the Assessee wrote to the AO stating that there were c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ner of Income Tax (Appeals) ["CIT (A)"] noted that it was quite possible and natural that while submitting a return "some bona fide omission, wrong statements may occur." There was a distinction drawn between a revised return and a correction in the originally filed return. Since the Assessee had failed to file the revised return within the time period stipulated under Section 139(5) of the Act i.e. by 31st March 2002, the CIT (A) held that the AO was justified in rejecting the claim made by the Assessee under the revised computation. 14. By the impugned order dated 20th October 2014 in ITA No. 902/Del/2014, the ITAT allowed the Assessee"s plea. The ITAT noted that in the revised computation the loss shown for the Section 10A unit in the s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d return had to necessarily be filed. He also pointed out that there was a distinction between a correction in the original return and filing a revised return and that the former was not permissible in law. 16. Mr. Piyush Kaushik, learned counsel for the Assessee, on the other hand, referred to the recent decisions of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Sam Global Securities Ltd. (2014) 360 ITR 682 (Del); M/s. Influence v. Commissioner of Income Tax 2014-TIOL-1741-HC-DEL-IT and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd. (2008) 306 ITR 42 and the decision of Bombay High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders (P) Ltd. (2012) 349 ITR 336 (Bom). 17. In all the aforementioned decisions cited....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ITAT itself, this is not a case where any new claim for deduction under Section 10A of the Act has been made by the Assessee. This claim had been made in the original return itself. It is only the figure of profit that was changed in the revised computation as a result of wrongly showing a receipt in USDs without converting it into rupees. The ITAT has, in fact, remitted the matter back to the file of the AO to compute the deduction in accordance with law. 19. The Court does not see any prejudice being caused to the Revenue as a result of the above directions. It is consistent with the law explained by this Court in the above decisions after considering the effect of the decision of the Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra). Consequ....