TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (7) TMI 625
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the business of software development and I.T. enabled services. For the assessment years 2007- 2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010, the assessments were completed u/s 143(3) of the I.T.Act, accepting the deduction claimed u/s 10B of the I.T.Act. For the above said assessment years, the assessments were reopened by issuance of notice u/s 148 of the I.T.Act. The A.O. held in the reassessmernt order that the assessee is not entitled to deduction u/s 109A of the I.T.Act. The A.O. relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Regency Creations Ltd [(2013) 353 ITR 326 (Delhi)]. The assessee had made alternative claim u/s 10A of the I.T.Act before the A.O. when the assessments were reopened for assessment years 2007- 2008 to 2009-2010. The alternative claim made by the assessee u/s 10A of the I.T.Act was rejected by the A.O. by observing as under:- "As regards the alternative claim, the same cannot be examined in the reassessment proceedings, as the same are meant for bringing to tax income which has escaped assessment and cannot be basis for assessee to make claims which are barred by limitation." 3.1 For the assessment year 2011-2012, the assessment was compl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n, the AO has correctly reopened the case u/s.147 and completed reassessment proceedings. Grounds of appeal challenging the validity of reopening the case u/s.147, are, therefore, dismissed for all the three years." 5. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed these appeals before the Tribunal. The learned Counsel for the assessee has filed a brief written submission. The gist of written submission reads as follow:- Common point in all the Appeals- (I.T Appeal No.s 161, 162, 163, 164/Coch/2020 AYs 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 & 2011-12) The appellant is entitled to be granted deduction under Section 10A of the Act, going by the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in CIT v. Flytxt Technology P. Ltd., reported in (2017) 398 ITR 717 (Kerala) & the order issued by this Hon'ble Tribunal following the said decision, in the case of Allianz Services Private Limited v. JCIT - (Refer: Paragraph NO.8 13 - 13.5 of the order dated 20.12.2019 in ITA No. 191/Coch/2015 for the A.Y.2010-2011) The first appellate authority failed to consider and apply the ratio of the decisions in Goetze (India) Ltd., v. CIT; reported in (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC), NTPC Ltd. v. CIT, re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....denied in the reassessment orders passed for the assessment years concerned by following the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Regency Creations Limited (supra). For the assessment year 2011- 2012, the original assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the I.T.Act and the claim of deduction u/s 10B of the I.T.Act was denied. The CIT(A) for the assessment years 2007-2008 to 2009-2010 and 2011-2012 confirmed the action of the A.O. in making the disallowance of deduction u/s 10B of the I.T.Act based on the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Regency Creations Limited (supra). The alternative claim of deduction u/s 10A of the I.T.Act was not entertained by the CIT(A) primarily for the reason that the assessee had not claimed the same in original returns filed. 7.1 The claim of deduction u/s 10A and 10B of the I.T.Act is para materia except that the registration u/s 10B and 10A of the I.T.Act are done by different authorities. Further, the claim u/s 10B and 10A of the I.T.Act are to be made in Form No.56G and 56F respectively. The basis of denying the claim of deduction u/s 10B of the I.T.Act is on account of the dictum laid ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in the case of CIT v. Flytxt Technology P. Ltd. [(2017) 398 ITR 717 (Ker.)] while considering the validity of rejection of claim of deduction u/s 10B of the I.T.Act as directed by the CIT(A) u/s 263 of the I.T.Act, confirmed the view taken by the ITAT wherein it had directed the Assessing Officer to consider the alternative claim u/s 10A of the I.T.Act. In this context, the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT [(1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC)]. The Hon'ble High Court further held that even though the powers conferred on the Commissioner u/s 263 of the I.T.Act is limited to examine the orders passed by the Assessing Officer whether it is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, that restriction of power could not affect powers of Tribunal which was bound to exercise u/s 254 of the I.T.Act. 7.5 The Tribunal in the case of M/s.Allianz Services Private Limited v. JCIT [ITA No.191/Coch/2015 - order dated 20th December, 2019] had also considered an identical issue and held that the alternative claim of deduction u/s 10A of the I.T.Act is necessarily to be considered wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 172&173/Coch/2015 dated 17/11/2015. 3. Cronos Consulting India (P) ltd. (ITA No. 105/Coch/2014 dated 06/06/2014) 4. ITO vs. Device Driven (India) Pvt. Ltd (ITA No. 282/Coch/2013 dated 29/11/2013). 13.4 Further, the Ld. AR relied on the judgment of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Flytxt Technology (P) Ltd. in ITA Nos. 47 & 77 of 2015 wherein the alternate claim for exemption u/s. 10A of the Act granted by the Tribunal was upheld. 13.4 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record. A similar issue was considered by the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Flytxt Technology (P) Ltd. 87 taxmann.com 77 where it was held as follows: "6. We have considered the submissions made. Admittedly, the assessee initially claimed the benefit of Section 10B which was allowed by the Assessing Officer. Only when the Commissioner was seized of the proceedings under Section 263, the assessee raised an alternative claim for the benefit of Section 10A. The Commissioner did not examine that plea and on the other hand, directed the Assessing Officer to withdraw the exemption under Section 10B. It was this order which was challenged by the assessees in th....