TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (10) TMI 1588
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e are directed against the order of the CIT(A), Trivandrum dated 29/03/2016. The relevant assessment years are 2010-11 and 2011-12. 2. Since common issue is raised in these appeals, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 3. We shall first take up for adjudication the Revenue's appeals. I.T.A Nos.249 & 334/Coch/2016 : A.Y. 2010-11 & 2011-12 (Revenue's appeals) 4. The only issue raised in the Revenue's appeals is whether the CIT(A) is justified in allowing the alternative claim of the assessee u/s. 10A of the I.T. Act. 4.1 Briefly stated the facts of the case are as follows: The assessee is a company engaged in the business of data management services and c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the assessee is entitled and to allow the same as pleaded. While allowing the alternative plea of the assessee, the CIT(A) relied on the order of the Tribunal in the case of C.W.P. Taylor vs. DCIT in I.T.A. No. 695/Coch/2008 dated 28/07/2009. Further the CIT(A) relied on the judicial pronouncements which are listed at para 4.3 of the impugned order for the proposition that the powers of the Commissioner of Income-tax are co-terminus with that of the Assessing Officer. 4.3 The Revenue, being aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A) for the assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12 has filed the appeals in I.T.A. Nos. 249/Coch/2016 and 334/Coch/2016. The Ld. DR submitted that the assessee's unit is not eligible for 10A deduction as it is not situated....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... respectively certifying the compliance of the claim made for deduction under section 10A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been enclosed. The certificate of registration issued by Electronic Software Technology Park of India, Thiruvananthapuram in the name of the assessee has been enclosed at pgs. 89 to 96 of the Paper Book (which covers the relevant A.Y's). The eligibility of the unit registered with STPI to claim deduction u/s. 10A of the Act has been discussed at length in the order of the Hon'ble Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. QBurst Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (supra). The relevant finding of the Tribunal (Para 8 at pg. 28 of the P.B. filed by the assessee) reads as follows: "8. We have heard the rival submissions a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ii) M/s. Device Driven (India) P. Ltd. (ITA No. 282/Coch/2013 (order dt 6.6.2014) iii) Cronos Consulting India P Ltd vs. ACIT (ITA No.15/Coch/2014. 9. Further, we notice that the Assessing Officer in the remand report has not state that the assessee has not satisfied the conditions precedent to claim deduction under section 10A of the Act. The Assessing Officer has only raised a technical objection namely, the assessee is not entitled deduction under section 10A of the Act, since, the claim was not made in the return of income filed. However, we notice that the claim of deduction under section 10B of the Act was made in the return of income and the revenue was granting the deduction under section 10B of the Act in the previous assessm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....T(A) is justified in allowing the alternative plea of the assessee u/s. 10A of the I.T. Act. It is ordered accordingly. 5. In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed. 6. Now we shall take up the assessee's appeal in I.T.A. No. 297/Coch/2016 for the assessment year 2010-11. 6.1 There is a delay of 31 days in filing this appeal. The assessee has filed a petition for condoning the delay. On perusal of the condonation petition, we are satisfied that the delay in filing the appeal cannot be attributable to any latches on the part of the assessee. Hence we condone the delay in filing the assessee's appeal and proceed to dispose of the matter on merits. 6.2 Briefly stated the facts of the case are as follows: The assessee i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....so from the total turnover for the purpose of computing deduction u/s. 10B of the Act, in order to bring about parity between the numerator and the denominator. For the above proposition, the Ld. AR relied on the following judicial pronouncements: 1. CIT vs. Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd. (2011) 233 CTR 248 (Bom.) 2. CIT vs. Tata Elxsi Ltd. an Others (2011) 247 CTR 334 (Kar.) 3. ITO vs. SAKSoft Ltd. (2009) 121 TTJ 0865 (ITAT,Chennai (SB). 4. Sanyo LSI Technologies India Private Limited vs. DCIT: ITA No.977/Bang/2010 dated 13th May 2011 (ITAT Bangalore Bench) 5. CIT vs. Pentasoft Technologies Ltd. (2012) 347 ITR 578 (Mad.) 6.5 The Ld. DR supported the orders of Income Tax authorities. 6.6 We have heard the rival contentions and pe....