TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (12) TMI 687
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ear 2006-07. The appeal was admitted by a bench of this Court vide order dated 05.02.2013 on the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether the tribunal was right in making an adhoc disallowance of 2.5% of dividend income as expenditure incurred on exempt income when the assessee had identified expenditure to be disallowed? (ii) Whether the tribunal was right in directing that losses of a 10A/10AA unit, which are already set-off against other business income of the appellant, should be again carried forward and set-off against eligible profits of the same unit in a subsequent year? (iii) Whether the Tribunal was right in directing the respondent to disallow the deferred compensation claimed by appellant a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessment was passed on 31.12.2009. The assessee thereupon filed objections before Dispute Resolution Panel, which upheld the order of the Assessing Officer by an order dated 27.09.2010. On the basis of directions issued by before Dispute Resolution Panel, the Assessing Officer passed a final order of assessment on 28.10.2010. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal, before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the tribunal' for short). 3. The tribunal by an order dated 18.07.2010 inter alia disallowed the claim of the assessee under Section 14A of the Act. The tribunal in respect of losses incurred by the units eligible for deduction under Section 10A / 10AA of the Act held that the assessee could not be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on 37(1) of the Act. It is also contended that the tribunal erred in concluding that export nomenclatures as deemed export does not constitute export turnover as defined in Section 10A / 10AA of the Act and is therefore, not eligible for deduction. It is also argued that tribunal grossly erred in holding that VAT / GST cannot be included in export turnover and in total turnover as there is no requirement to exclude the same as per provisions of Section 10A / 10AA of the Act. The tribunal also misdirected itself in concluding that 80% of the uplinking charges should be excluded from the turnover. It was also urged that tribunal erred in concluding that purchase and sales of monitors constituted trading activity although such monitors are an ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ur of the revenue and the appeal is therefore, required to be dismissed. 6. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. From perusal of substantial question of law No.1, we find that the aforesaid substantial question of law is no longer res integra and has already been answered in favour of the assessee by the Supreme Court in 'GODREJ & BOYCE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LTD. VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AND ANR.', 394 ITR 449 (SC). In view of aforesaid enunciation of law, the first substantial question of law is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 7. Now we may advert to the second substantial question of law. From perusal of para 17 of the ju....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....question of law is also answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 8. We have perused paragraphs 12 to 18 of the decision of this court in 'COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANOTHER VS. TATA ELXSI LTD.' 382 ITR 654 (KAR) as well as para 21 of the Supreme Court in 'COMMISSINOER OF INCOME-TAX VS. HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD.', 404 ITR 719 (SC), we find that the sixth substantial question of law is also required to be answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. However, in view of submission made by learned Senior counsel for assessee that he does not intend to press substantial question of law No.7, it is not necessary to answer the aforesaid substantial question of law. 9. Learned counsel for the re....