TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (10) TMI 915
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arned CIT(A) is right in deleting the disallowance u/14A r.w.r. 8D of Rs. 23,44,799/- by ignoring the fact that the CBDT's circular no. 5/2014 dated 11.02.2014 is directly applicable and the disallowance has to be made irrespective of the fact that the exempt income is accrued to the assessee with regard to the investments or not? 2. Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, learned CIT(A) is right in excluding the expenditure of Rs. 54,41,03,568/- on account of telecommunication charges and foreign currency expenditure from export turnover? 3. Whether on the facts & the circumstances of the case, learned CIT(A) is right in excluding the expenditure of Rs. 54,41,03,568/- on account of telecommunication charges and foreign currency expenditure from export turnover? 4. The appellant craves leave, to add, alter or amend any ground of appeal raised above at the time of the hearing. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee was engaged in the business of remote infrastructure management services and application services. In the year under consideration, the assessee filed return of income on 30.09.2009, declaring total income of Rs. 8,64,57,746/-. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the order of the Tribunal in the case of the assessee for assessment year 2007-08 (supra) which is a binding precedent. The relevant finding of the learned CIT(A) is reproduced as under: "I have considered all the facts and circumstances of the case and also the history of the case. The appellant has been granted the relief by the Hon. ITAT for assessment year 2007-08 and by the ITAT in AY 2006-07 to 2008-09 under the identical facts and circumstances. Therefore, considering the judicial precedent and the consistency on the issue, I respectfully follow the order of the Hon. ITAT as well as my esteemed colleague and the issue is decided in favour of the appellant. The licence fee paid by the appellant is treated as revenue in nature." 5.4 In view of above, we do not find any error in the finding of the learned CIT(A) and accordingly, we uphold the same. 6. Ground no. 3 of the appeal relates to whether the telecommunication charges and foreign currency expenditure has to be reduced from the export turnover for the purpose of computing deduction under Section 10A of the Act. 6.1 Before us, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue in dispute is covered in favour o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g the License fee paid to DOT as revenue expenditure and deleting the capitalization of license fee of Rs. 3,69,25,186/-? 3. Whether on the facts & the circumstances of the case, ld. CIT(A) is right in excluding the expenditure of Rs. 32,92,61,465/- on account of telecommunication charges and foreign currency expenditure from export turnover ? 4. Whether on the facts & the circumstances of the case, Id. CIT(A) is right in deleting the disallowance of unrealized foreign exchange loss on account of reinstatement of assets and liabilities of Rs. 15,97,25,873/- by ignoring the fact that this is a notional loss and not allowable to be set off against the taxable income in view of CBDT's instruction no. 3 of 2010 dated 23.03.2010? 5. The appellant craves leave, to add, alter or amend any ground of appeal raised above at the time of the hearing. 6. The appellant craves leave, to add, alter or amend any ground of appeal raised above at the time of the hearing. 10. Ground no. 1 relates to disallowance of Rs. 55,82,650/- which was made by the Assessing Officer, has been deleted by the learned CIT(A). 10.1 The facts qua the issued in dispute are that the assessee received divide....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the following decision: 1. ACB India Ltd. Vs. ACIT, 374 ITR 108 (Del.) 2. Pr. CIT Vs. Caraf Builders & Constructions Pvt. Ltd., ITA No. 1260/2018 (Del.HC) 10.3 On the other hand, learned DR relied on the order of the Assessing Officer. 10.4 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. We agree with the contention of the learned counsel that disallowance as per Rule 8D(2)(iii) ought to be computed at nil, however, on perusal of the computation of Rule 8D(2)(iii) by the Assessing Officer, we find that he has worked out investment as on 31.03.2009 at Rs. 54,94,39,000/- and investment as on 31.03.2010 at Rs. 1,68,79,28,003/- and worked out the average investment of Rs. 111,86,83,501/-. In view of above facts, the contention that there was wrong opening and closing investment is not accepted. As far as satisfaction of the Assessing Officer is concerned, firstly the Assessing Officer has rejected the claim of assessee after perusal of the account of the assessee, thereafter, he proceeded to invoke Rule 8D of the Rules. Thus, the contentions of the assessee that no dissatisfaction has been recorded by the Assessing Officer for invoking Rule 8D is....