TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (1) TMI 322
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rder dated 24-02-2013 passed by the Assessing Officer u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the I.T. Act, 1961. For the sake of convenience, all these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. ITA 963/PUN/2013 (By Revenue) - (A.Y. 2007-08) CO.No.72/PUN/2014 (By Assessee) - (A.Y. 2007-08) : 2. Ground of appeal No.1 by the Revenue reads as under : "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in holding that the assessee is entitled to claim deduction u/s.10A on the profit of Unit B also." 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of providing software development services to various group entities outside India. It filed its return of income on 31-10-2007 disclosing total income of Rs. 51,93,24,908/- after claiming deduction of Rs. 26,99,57,988/- u/s.10A of the I.T. Act on profits derived from Unit-B. 4. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee company was incorporated on 12- 09-1995 and engaged in software development/research and development (R&D services) to various Veritas group entities outside India right....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion u/s.10A beyond 10 years, therefore, it is not eligible to claim the deduction. He accordingly restricted the deduction u/s.10A of the I.T. Act. 7. In appeal the Ld.CIT(A) following the order of the Tribunal for A.Y. 2004-05 in assessee's own case allowed the claim of deduction holding that Unit-B is an independent and distinct unit from Unit-A which is eligible to claim deduction u/s.10A. 8. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A) the Revenue is in appeal before us. 9. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that the Revenue has challenged the order of the Tribunal before the Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble High Court vide ITA No.1534/2012 order dated 12-12-2014 has dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue by holding that Unit-B is a separate and independent unit. Therefore, this being a covered matter in favour of the assessee the grounds raised by the Revenue should be dismissed. 10. The Ld. Departmental Representative on the other hand while supporting the order of the Assessing Officer fairly conceded that the Hon'ble High Court has decided the issue in favour of the assessee by holding that Unit-B is a separate independent unit. 11. We h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... No contrary material was brought on record by the Departmental Representative or the Revenue before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has also affirmed a finding of fact of the Commissioner by concluding that merely because a new permission is obtained in relation to this Unit, containing reference to the original licence, that is not conclusive to demonstrate that the new Unit is a separate or independent Unit. The Software Technology Park is the broad identity of the area, but the Unit-B is held not to be expansion of the existing Unit-A, rather it is a separate or an independent Unit. Such findings of fact to our mind does not raise any substantial question of law. The material on record was enough to conclude about the Unit-B being separate or independent." 13. Since the Hon'ble High Court has already upheld the finding given by the Tribunal that Unit-B is a separate and independent unit for the purpose of claiming deduction u/s.10A of the I.T. Act, therefore, in absence of any contrary material brought to our notice by the Ld. Departmental Representative against the decision of the Hon'ble High Court in assessee's own case, we find no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) holding ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d CO No.72/PN/2014 are dismissed. 19. In ground of appeal No.9 and 10 the assessee has challenged the levy and erroneous computation of interest u/s.234B of the I.T. Act. 20. After hearing both the sides and in view of our restoring the issue of Transfer Pricing adjustment to the file of the Assessing Officer in the light of the acceptance of resolution reached under MAP, we restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to recompute the levy of interest u/s.234B of the I.T. Act which is mandatory and consequential in nature. Ground of appeal No.9 and 10 in the CO are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. ITA No.1799/PUN/2014 (By Revenue) - (A.Y. 2009-10) ITA No.1821/PUN/2014 (By Assessee) - ( A.Y.2009-10) 21. Ground of appeal No. 1 by the revenue reads as under : "1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A)- IT/TP, erred in Law allowing deduction u/s.10A on profits of Unit-B." 22. After hearing both the sides, we find the above ground is identical to ground of appeal No.1 by the Revenue in ITA No.963/PUN/2013 for A.Y. 2007-08. We have already decided the issue and the ground raised by the Revenue has be....