TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (9) TMI 71
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l for the assessment year 2002-03. Before adverting to the specific grievance of the parties, we would like to make reference to certain facts. 3. The assessee at the relevant time was in the business of software development. It has filed its return of income on 31.10.2002 declaring NIL income after claiming deduction of Rs. 29,15,29,314/- under section 10A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. An assessment order was passed under section 143(3) on 28.12.2004. The ld.AO has made certain disallowance and restricted the deduction under section 10A at Rs. 25,52,65,186/-. Dissatisfied with the assessment order the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld.CIT(A) who has decided the appeal vide order dated 24.5.2005. Dissatisfied with order ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 9,99,70,054/- in respect of Unit No.107; (2) directing to exclude the income of Rs. 16,48,000/- being exchange fluctuation gain and other income of Rs. 1000/- for granting exemption u/s 10A in respect of new Unit in SEEPZ and STP in Pune Unit; (3) directing to recalculate deduction u/s 80HHE of the Act after considering the exchange fluctuation gain of Rs. 35,04,000/-; (4) allowing loans and advances written off of Rs. 1.33 lakhs; (5) allowing Rs. 4,25,72,977/- (sic) Rs. 42,57,297/- paid as Belgium tax u/s 37(1) of the Act; (6) allowing Rs. 72,11,557/- out of disallowance of Rs. 74,11,557/- u/s 14A of the Act; (7) deleting the addition of Rs. 2,34,50,000/- being compensation received fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....18,50,502/-, without properly appreciating the facts of the case and the material brought on record. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. 4. It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer may be restored to the above extent. 5. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground, which may be necessary." 5. The assessee has raised only one ground of appeal, which reads as under: "The following ground of appeal is distinct and separate and without prejudice to each other: 1.0 Ground No. 1: The learned Commissioner....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me of hearing." 6. The ld.counsel for the assessee, on the strength of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Yokogawa India Ltd., 391 ITR 274 (SC) contended that profit of eligible unit ought to be considered for grant of deduction under section 10A as a standalone basis without setting of the loss of other non-eligible units. 7. We have considered rival contentions and gone through the record. The limited issue before the AO in a set aside proceedings was related to exclusion/inclusion of foreign exchange fluctuation gain from computation of 10A as well as reworking of disallowance for the purpose of 14A. The issue which has been agitated by the assessee in its appeal before the Tribunal in the second round was never raised before the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... issue is less than Rs. 20 lakhs. Therefore, both the appeals of the Revenue are hit by recent CBDT instruction No.3 of 2018 dated 8.7.2018 wherein the Board has prohibited Revenue to file appeal before the Tribunal where tax effect is below Rs. 20 lakhs. The instructions have been made applicable with retrospective effect, meaning thereby, these instructions are applicable on pending appeals also. When we confronted the ld.DR with this Circular, the ld.DR did not dispute the same and left to the Tribunal to decide in accordance with law. 9. In the present case, if we consider each addition contested by the Revenue, then it would show that tax effect on each appeal would fall below Rs. 20 lakhs. The "tax effect" as per CBDT Circular is t....