2019 (6) TMI 931

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ceedings the assessee could not produce the books while claiming deduction under section 10A ? (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is correct in deleting the disallowance of deduction u/s 10A of the IT Act on account of disallowances made u/s 40(a)(ia) and 43B of the IT Act, ignoring the facts that disallowance u/s 40a(ia) and 43B is not profits derived and related to manufacturing activities, for which the assessee has been claiming deduction u/s 10A of the IT Act ?   (iii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is justified in law in excluding M/s. Bodhtree consulting Ltd., e-Zest Solutions Ltd., Helios....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... to exclude the instances of several companies mentioned in the question itself on various grounds. The Tribunal in the impugned judgment had come to the conclusion that these companies do not provide comparable instances. 6. Under similar circumstances, this Court in case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 V/s. Barclays Technology Centre India (P) Ltd. (Income Tax Appeal No.1384 of 2015 decided on 26th June, 2018) had occasion to test such conclusions of the Tribunal in relation to the following companies : Bodhtree Consulting Ltd., E-Zest Solutions Ltd., Kals Information Systems Ltd. and FCS Software Solutions Ltd. We further notice that in case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. John Deere India Pvt. Ltd., (Income Tax....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....at the Tribunal held that the said Company was functionally different from the assessee. No question of law therefore, arises. 11. With the sole surviving instance of Apitco Limited, the assessee pointed out that the said Company had abnormally high operating margin of 52% and that the same was also otherwise functionally different. The Tribunal concluded that looking to the activities of the assessee and the said Company, the same are at variance. The Tribunal held that the said Company was functionally different from that of the assessee. The Tribunal referred to and relied upon the earlier decision of similar instances. No question of law therefore, arises. 12. Coming to question (iv), it arises out of the Revenue's objection t....