TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (3) TMI 2041
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....CIT., represented on behalf of the Revenue and Shri Sriram Seshadri, CA., represented on behalf of the assessee. 3.0 In the assessee's appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: General 1. The order of the Ld. AO and Ld. CIT (A) is against the principles of natural justice, violative of provisions of the Act, devoid of merits, without appreciating the fact involved, without appreciating the documents submitted in proper light and without conducting adequate inquiries. 2. Exclusion from export turnover for deduction under section 10A of the Act 2.1 The Ld. CIT (A) and AO have erred in law and on facts in deducting the foreign currency expenditure on technical & help desk service charges and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant under section 43B of the Act from the total profits of the undertaking while computing deduction under section 10A of the Act, on the ground that such disallowance is penal in nature. 3.2 The Ld. CIT (A) and the Ld. AO have erred in not allowing deduction under section 10A of the Act on the enhanced profit computed as per provisions of section 29 of the Act. 4. Expenditure on purchase of Random Access Memory Cards for computer equipments 4.1 The Ld. CIT (A) and the Ld. AO have erred in disallowing, under section 37 of the Act, the expenditure of INR 9,350,469 incurred by the Appellant towards purchases of Memory Cards for computers by treating the same as expenditure of capital in nature. 4.2 The Ld. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the Act by erroneously concluding that the said payments constitute Fee for Included Services under the Tax Treaty between India and US. 4.0 Ground No. 1 is general in nature which does not require any adjudication. 5.0 In regard to Ground Nos. 2 to 2.5, it was submitted that the issue was against the action of the Ld. CIT (A) in upholding the exclusion from export turnover for deduction u/s. 10A of the Act the help desk service charges and the travelling expenses. It was submitted that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT Special Bench in the case of M/s. Sak Soft Ltd., reported in 30 SOT 55 (Chennai) (SB), the help desk service charges and the travelling expenses having been reduced from the export turnover, the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....1 In reply, the Ld. DR vehemently supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 6.2 We have considered the rival submissions. 6.3 As it is noticed that the issue is now squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of M/s. Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd., referred to supra, respectfully following the principles of the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of M/s. Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd., the AO is directed to grant the assessee the benefit of deduction u/s. 10A by including voluntary disallowance made by the assessee u/s. 43B of the Act. Consequently, Ground Nos. 3 to 3.2 of the assessee's appeal stands allowed. 7.0 In regard to Ground Nos. 4 to 4.3, it was submitted that the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nts. Consequently, Ground Nos. 4 to 4.3 of the assessee's appeal stands allowed. 8.0 In regard to Ground Nos. 5 to 5.2, it was submitted that the issue was against the action of the Ld. CIT (A) in upholding the disallowance of the interest expenditure on delayed payment of service tax and PF contribution u/s. 37 of the Act. It was a submission that in respect of the PF contribution the assessee was not pressing the ground. It was a submission that the interest expenditure on the delayed payment of the service tax had been treated penal in nature by the AO and the Ld. CIT(A). It was a submission that the same was compensatory in nature as has been held by the Delhi Benches of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Messee Dusseldorf I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct that the issue of withholding tax on the payments to GTE-OC was pending before the Authority for Advanced Rulings (in short "AAR"). It was a submission that the AAR had disposed off the matter and the assessee had taken up the matter in appeal to the Hon'ble Madras High Court which had upheld the findings of the AAR that the payment to GTE-OC was not reimbursement. However, the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court on the issue as to whether the employee had provided technical services or not, had been restored to the file of the AAR for re-adjudication. It was a submission that against the order of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, the assessee has filed an SLP to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and against the order of the Hon'ble Jurisdict....