TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (9) TMI 629
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....04. First ground of appeal of the assessee, reads as follows :- "1. That the ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred on facts and in law in not considering amount received on account of interest of Rs. 9,52,477/- as income derived from the industrial undertaking and not allowing the same as exempt income under section 10-A of the Income-tax Act." 2.2 The assesse is a company. It is engaged in the business of providing project management and engineering consultancy services in several areas including computer and systems engineering. The assessee also had a software division. The income of the software division was exempt under section 10-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as the Act]. While computing eligible deduction the assesse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Fluctuation [Rs. 4,51,239/-] and Sundry balance of unclaimed expenses of employees written back [Rs. 96,640/-] as income derived from industrial undertaking and exemption of the same income under section 10-A of the Income-tax Act." 3.2 At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the CIT (Appeals) in an application filed by the assessee on this aspect had decided the issue on merits and, therefore, the second ground of appeal has become infructuous In view of the above, second ground of appeal of the assessee, is dismissed. 3.3 In the result, the appeal by the assessee, is dismissed. I.T. Appeal No. 186 (Del) of 2004 - (Appeal by the Revenue) : 4.1 The first ground of appeal of the Revenue, reads as follo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of Rs. 50,000/- made by the assessing officer. It was further pointed out that in assessment year 1998-99 in I.T. Appeal No. 2948 (Del) of 2002 [order passed later in point of time to the earlier order], this Tribunal had taken the view that the disallowance cannot be made by the assessing officer without pointing out the items of expenses, which were incurred in earning the income, which was not chargeable to tax. The Tribunal in this regard had relied on the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Maruti Udyog Ltd. 92 ITD 119 (Del) Thus, there is a conflict of views on this issue expressed by the two benches. We, however, notice that a Third Member decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Wimco Seedi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. Padam Prakash, HUF 104 ITD page 1. In view of the above, we uphold the order of the CIT (Appeals) and dismiss the first ground of appeal of the Revenue. 5.1 The second ground of appeal of the Revenue, reads as follows - " 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, CIT (Appeals) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 8,00,000/- made on account of common expenses. " 5.2 As already stated, the assessee had a unit, which was engaged in the business of developing software. A separate profit and loss account had been drawn for this software unit. The software unit had shown a profit of Rs. 2,49,88,243/- and this income was exempt under section 10-A of the Act. The assessing officer held th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nue, is dismissed. 6.1 The third ground of appeal of the Revenue, reads as follows :- " 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, CIT (Appeals) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,94,010/- on account of notice pay as the same cannot be said to have been derived from Industrial Undertaking in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Sterling Foods Ltd. " 6.2 The assessee had recovered a sum of Rs. 4,94,070/- being notice period pay. This sum was recovered from the employees, who had left the services prior to the agreed period of rendering service with the assessee. This sum was claimed by the assessee to be part of the profits derived from the business of export of computer software....