TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (10) TMI 265
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Tax Act, 1961 (here-in-after referred to as "the Act") relevant to the Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(Appeals) erred in in directing the Assessing Officer to allow exemption u/s.10A amounting to Rs. 1,58,61,000/- by exercising undue jurisdictional powers by entertaining appeal against the assessment order u/s.143(3) of the Act passed in pursuant to directions of the CIT in the case of the assessee for the assessment year 2007-08 vide order u/s.263 of the Act 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld.CIT(Appeals) erred in admitting additional evidences without appreciating that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ngs found that the assessee is not engaged in the activity of export of the website. Therefore, the assessee is not eligible for deduction u/s 10A of the Act. Thus, the AO disallowed the same of Rs. 1,58,61,000/- and added to the total income of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the Ld. CIT(A), who allowed the exemption u/s 10A of the Act, by observing as under: "The appellant has sufficiently established by evidences that the statement was given under misconceived notion and has also established that the ownership of the Ultimate Introductions Inc. of USA from whom the income is received is an independent entity and that the activity conducted by the appellant is of software development and also its mai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....O to decide the same a fresh in the light of these evidences. 8. On the other hand the Ld. AR before contended that the Tribunal in the own case of the assessee for the Assessment Year 2007-08 in ITA No.806/Ahd/2011 has decided the issue in favour of the assessee vide order dated 23/01/2017. 9. Both the ld. DR and the AR before us relied on the order of the authorities below as favorable to them. 10. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. At the outset, we note that the issue on hand is covered in favour of the assessee in its own case as mentioned above. The relevant extract of the order is reproduced below: 8. There is no dispute that during the course of su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Notification No. 890(E) issued by the Government in reference to Section 10A(b)(i)(2), 10B(b)(i)(2) and 80HHE(b) and the same reads as under:- Notification: 890(E) Section(s) Referred: s. 10A(b)(i)(2) ,s. 10B(b)(i)(2) ,s. 80HHE(b) Statute: INCOME TAX Date of Issue: 26/9/2000 In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of item (i) of Explanation 2 of section 10A, clause (b) of item (i) of Explanation 2 of section 10B and clause (b) of Explanation to section 80HHE of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), the Central Board of Direct Taxes hereby specifies the following information technology enabled products or services, as the case may be, for the purpose of said clauses, namely :- (i) Back-office Opera....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tax Act, 1961 are under an obligation to act in accordance with law. Tax can be collected only as provided under the Act. If an assessee, under a mistake, misconception or on not being properly instructed, is over-assessed, the authorities under the Act are required to assist him and ensure that only legitimate taxes due are collected. Every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of the Assessing Officer cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. When an Assessing Officer has adopted one of the courses permissible in law, which has resulted in loss of revenue, or where two views are possible and the Assessing Officer has taken one view, with which the Commissioner does not agree, the order cannot be treated to b....