TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (11) TMI 1205
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ollection and thus not eligible for deduction under section 10A of the Income-tax Act. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in directing to work out the deduction under section 10A without excluding the telecommunication and insurance expenses from the export turnover. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any ground of appeal raised above at the time of hearing." 2. The first issue raised by the Revenue in ground Nos. 1 and 2 is that the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer for Rs. 53,68,155 on account of deduction under section 10A of the Act. 3. Briefly stated the facts are that the assessee is a private limited company and registered under the Software Technology Parks of India (STPI), in a scheme formulated by the Government of India. The assessee during assessment proceedings claimed to have engaged in providing BPO/outsourcing and call centre services related to debt collections to its holding company M/s. Chex Systems Inc. USA. 4. The assessee in the year under consideration has claimed a d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....described in different words at the places identified i.e., Forms 3CEB, 3CD and the submission dated 21 October, 2010, however, the nature of business is the same. In a nutshell, the customers of Chex Systems Inc., SA ("CSI") who are financial institutions in the USA require debt collection services for their US clients and the appellant provides the said services. The appellant has reconciled the nature of activities candidly in its submission dated February 21, 2012. Therefore, in my view there is no inconsistency in the nature of services provided by the appellant. The services rendered by the appellant are in the nature of outbound call centre activities for managing accounts receivables and recovery for the international customers, of CSI (who is the customer of the appellant). Further, the Assessing Officer in his assessment order on page 8 has himself stated that the appellant is engaged in the provision of services in the sphere of managing accounts receivable and recovery. The Assessing Officer further admits that the appellant is making calls to CSI's international customers, however the Assessing Officer disputes that the appellant was not using any computer software....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ll not be able to function. It is a matter of record that computers including networking equipment comprise of more than 50 per cent. of the total assets of the appellant. It is also an undisputed fact that the appellant does not have any ISD facility and the details of telecommunication expenses are on record. All the calls are made using the predictive dialer software using the internet facility. Thus, the contention of the Assessing Officer that no software is used by the appellant is not based on the proper appreciation of the working of outbound call centres. Hence I do not agree with the findings of the Assessing Officer. (c). The Assessing Officer has also mentioned that there is no customised electronic data which is being prepared and sent to the customer and thus, it cannot be said that the appellant is using computer software for his business activities to make him eligible to deduction under section 10A. To this also I do not agree with the contention of the Assessing Officer. Since the appellant has been using the sophisticated software in carrying out its business activities and the same is discussed in detail above. It has been observed that after the call, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e in terms of clause (b) of item (i) of Explanation 2 to section 10A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with Notification No. S. O. 890(E) dated September 26, 2000* issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. Considering the business module of the appellant, it is seen that the appellant is eligible for deduction under section 10A of the Income-tax Act. It is also seen that the claim of deduction under section 10A of the appellant was accepted in the earlier assessment year(s) 2006-07 and 2007-08 and no adverse inference drawn about the deduction claimed under section 10A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") in those year. The only disallowance in those two earlier years was in respect of restricting the deduction under section 10A on the amount of export turnover calculated after excluding communication and insurance expenses. The said disallowance has also been deleted by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in both the assessment years and the appeal order passed in both the earlier years allowing the claim of the appellant has been placed on record before me. It is also seen that the nature of business activities of the appellan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Act. In prior assessment years, the Assessing Officer has accepted the claim of the assessee and deductions have been allowed. In the year under consideration, there is no change in the business activity of the assessee, thus, in our view, the principle of consistency also demand that this deduction should be allowed to the assessee. In view of the above discussion, we find the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on the issue in dispute, is well reasoned and no interference on our part is required. Accordingly, we uphold the same. The grounds Nos. 1 and 2 of the appeal are dismissed." 9. We find that the issue involved in the present appeal exactly identical to the issue raised in the earlier years as discussed above. The learned Departmental representative has also not brought anything contrary to the finding of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Therefore we have no alternate except to confirm the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Respectfully following the order this hon'ble Tribunal for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10 in I. T. A. Nos. 1410 and 4315/Del/2012 in the own case of the assessee, we d....