TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (11) TMI 362
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....both from the export turnover and the total turnover. Whereas the Revenue wants exclusion of such charges only from the amount of export turnover, the assessee wants their inclusion in both. 4. We have heard both the sides and gone through the relevant material on record. It is seen that similar issue came up for consideration before the Tribunal in assessee's own case for the immediately preceding year. Vide order dated 26.10.2021, the Tribunal in ITA No.2395/PUN/2017 and ITA No.2624/PUN/2017 has upheld the exclusion of telecommunication charges etc. both from the export turnover and total turnover in the computation of deduction u/s 10AA of the Act. The impugned order is, therefore, upheld and consequently the grounds raised by both the assessee as well as the Revenue are dismissed. 5. Ground No. 2 taken both by the assessee and Revenue is against exclusion of Rs. 36,04,55,570 on providing technical services abroad from the export as well as total turnover in the computation of deduction u/s 10AA of the Act. The assessee did not exclude this amount both from the export and total turnover. The AO excluded only from the export turnover. The ld. CIT(A) directed its exclusion both ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ennai SEZ at Rs. 66,51,576. Similarly, in respect of Interest cost also, the assessee initially submitted that there was no specific borrowing for SEZ units. However, on a without prejudice basis, the assessee furnished allocation of such interest cost to Hyderabad SEZ unit at Rs. 55,05,446 and Chennai SEZ unit at Rs. 24,91,409 on the basis of turnover key. The AO recomputed the amount of eligible deduction from the two SEZ units by reducing the proportionate corporate expenses and interest expenses from the income computed by the assessee in respect of Chennai and Hyderabad SEZ units. The CIT(A) echoed the assessment order on this point. 11. We have heard both the sides and gone through the relevant material on record. On a specific query, the ld. AR could not point out that the amount of corporate expenses of Rs. 9,61,12,961 and the amount of interest cost of Rs. 3,60,00,000 was allocated to the eligible Hyderabad SEZ and Chennai SEZ units. Since these costs were incurred for and pertained to all the units of assessee including the SEZ units, it was necessary to consider them in computing the profit from the two SEZ units for the purpose of deduction u/s 10AA of the Act. It is f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f short deduction of tax at source."" 16. The Hon"ble Supreme Court in National Thermal Power Company Ltd. Vs. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC) has observed that "the purpose of the assessment proceedings before the taxing authorities is to assess correctly the tax liability of an assessee in accordance with law. If, for example, as a result of a judicial decision given while the appeal is pending before the Tribunal, it is found that a non-taxable item is taxed or a permissible deduction is denied, we do not see any reason why the assessee should be prevented from raising that question before the tribunal for the first time, so long as the relevant facts are on record in respect of that item". Answering the question posed before it in affirmative, their Lordships held that on the facts found by the authorities below, if a question of law arises (though not raised before the authorities) which has bearing on the tax liability of the assessee, the Tribunal has jurisdiction to examine the same. Having gone through the subject matter of the additional ground taken by the assessee, it is discernible that the additional ground raises a pure question of law. We, therefore, admit the addition....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bay High Court in the case of Sesa Goa Ltd. vs. JCIT (2020) 423 ITR 426 (Bom) in which it has been held that Education cess and Higher secondary education cess are not allowable as deduction in the year of payment and hence, the deduction is not linked with actual payment. Similar issue has been considered and decided by the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for the A.Y. 2011-12. Respectfully following the precedent, we set aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the file of the AO for making requisite verification in this regard and thereafter allow necessary deduction. 21. Ground No.3 of the Revenue"s appeal is connected with its ground No.5 as both deal with the deletion of disallowance made u/s 14A read with 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (hereinafter also called "the Rules"). 22. The facts apropos these grounds are that the assessee earned exempt dividend income from mutual funds to the extent of Rs. 7,03,29,908. Disallowance was offered only at Rs. 3,38,170, being, 25% of salaries of the Investment department officials. The AO, after recording satisfaction, computed the disallowance at net of Rs. 4,14,08,008 (after adjusting the suo motu disallowance offered by....