TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (10) TMI 936
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er is a limited company and is engaged in I.T. Enabled Services and Software business. For the assessment year 2011-2012, the petitioner had filed return of income on 29.11.2011 declaring total income of Rs. 34.08 lacs (rounded off). Such return was taken in scrutiny. The Assessing Officer passed order under section 143(3) of the Act on 28.2.2014 making certain additions to the income of the assessee. To reopen such assessment, the Assessing Officer had issued a notice dated 28.3.2016. The reasons cited for issuing such notice pertained to the petitioner's eligibility for deduction under section 10B of the Act. The petitioner challenged such notice before the High Court mainly arguing that the petitioner's claim for deduction under ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ds, it is seen that the assessee company had claimed deduction u/s 108 amounting to Rs. 1.1,22,56,604/from 2 units at Pune and Kandla. However, huge losses from Head Office and Sales unit amounting to Rs. 94.52 lacs and 31.41 lacs were shown, because of which there was net business loss. I have gone through the specific audit reports furnished by the assessee in respect of 10B claim but it has not given any details as to how the income of 10B units and nonlOB units had been computed, especially the apportionment of common administrative expenses. It is further seen that the assessee had debited Head Office with huge amount of administrative expenses which is much more than what has been debited to other units in spite of the fact that th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... four years from the end of relevant assessment year. There is no allegation that the assessee had failed to disclose truly and fully all material facts necessary for assessment. Impugned notice is therefore, bad in law. 2) The entire claim of deduction under section 10B was examined by the Assessing Officer in original scrutiny assessment. Any attempt on part of the Assessing Officer to reexamine this issue would be based on change of opinion. 3) In the previous round, High Court had quashed such notice. Reasons recorded by Assessing Officer in the present case may be different from those cited in previous instances, nevertheless, both pertained to the assessee's claim of deduction under section 10B of the Act. The High Court in ea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... at inflated profit of eligible unit and deflated profit of non eligible units. Nevertheless, entire issue pertained to assessee's claim of deduction under section 10B of the Act. In the previous judgment, the High Court had noted that this claim was examined by the Assessing Officer in the original assessment proceedings. It would therefore, not be open for him to reexamine the claim, may be on another aspect or element of the claim being raised through reassessment proceedings. In the present case, yet another element of the claim being cited as a ground for reopening the assessment. We have noticed that during the original assessment, the Assessing Officer had raised multiple queries with respect to this claim. In response to that As....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ount Rs. 19,26,08,605/Total Profits of the Business Rs.10,66,05,096/- Amount of Deduction as Claimed in Form 56G : Rs10,66,05,096/- Revised Amount of Deduction Rs.19,26,08,606/- X Rs. 10,66,05,096 = Rs. 10,55,64,382/- Rs. 19,45,07,450/- Please note the business of both the Pune and Kasez Units is the same as in earlier years i.e. computer software (as defined in section 10B) and Hardware. The sales Invoices are produced before Your Honour of both the periods in support of the above. We have also enclosed the Unit wise statement of Income (AnnexureP4) The unit wise Statement of Income shows the computation of Profits of the business each Unit separately. It will be found that MD salary etc has been allocated over all units in ....