Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Dcit, New Delhi vs M/S. Dsl Software Ltd., New Delhi on 30 April, 2019 In the IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'B', New Delhi Before : Shri Amit Shukla, Judicial Member And Shri L.P. Sahu, Accountant Member ITA No. 3722/Del/2014 & 3723/Del/2014 Assessment Years: 200203 & 200506 DCIT, Central Circle2, vs. DSL Software Ltd. (Now amalgamated New Delhi. with HCL Technologies Ltd.), 806, Siddharth, 96, Nehru Place, New Delhi. PAN AAACH1545P (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No. 2310/Del/2012 Assessment Year: 200304 ACIT, Central Circle18, vs. DSL Software Ltd. (Now amalgamated New Delhi. with HCL Technologies Ltd.), 806, Siddharth, 96, Nehru Place, New Delhi. PAN AAACH1545P (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 258/Del/2012 (in ITA No. 2310/Del/2012) Assessment Year: 200304 DSL Software Ltd. (Now amalgamated vs. ACIT, Central Circle18, with HCL Technologies Ltd.), 806, New Delhi. Siddharth, 96, Nehru Place, New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT/DR Respondent by Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate & Sh. Aditya Vohra, Advocate ITA Nos. 3722, 3723/Del/2014, 2310/Del/12 & CO. No.258/Del/2012 2 Date of Hearing 26.03.2019 Date of Pronouncement 30.04.2019 ORDER Per L.P. Sahu, A.M.: The appeals of the Revenue for A. Yrs. 200203, 200304 and 200506 are directed against the orders of CIT(A), New Delhi dated 31.03.2014, 01.03.2012 and 31.03.2014 respectively. The grounds raised by the Revenue in their respective appeals are as under : A.Y. 200203: 1. On the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the facts that none of the issues taken up in assessment proceedings had been taken up in assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act, hence, it is not based on 'change of opinion'. 2. On the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance made by the AO on account of deduction/exemption claimed u/s 10B and 80HHE of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. On the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs.2,46,557/ made by AO in view of the provisions of Section 14A of Income Tax Act read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules. 4. The order of the CIT(A) is erroneous and is not tenable on facts and in law. ITA Nos. 3722, 3723/Del/2014, 2310/Del/12 & CO. No.258/Del/2012 3 A.Y. 200304: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in quashing the reassessment proceedings u/s 148 by holding that the same is based on 'change of opinion'. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance made by the AO u/s 80HHE and 10A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of profits derived from overseas branches. 3. The order of the CIT(A) is erroneous and is not tenable on facts and in law. A.Y. 200506: 1. On the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance made by the AO on account of deduction/exemption claimed u/s 10B and 80HHE of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. On the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs.24,75,205/ made by AO on account of excess claim of depreciation claimed by assessee. 3. The order of the CIT(A) is erroneous and is not tenable on facts and in law. 2. The assessee has also filed a cross objection in appeal for A.Y. 200304 on the following ground : Ground of Crossobjection: 1. That the Commissioner of Incometax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in not adjudicating the alternative claim made for allowing the allocated head office expenses and the foreign tax credit ("FTC") pursuant ITA Nos. 3722, 3723/Del/2014, 2310/Del/12 & CO. No.258/Del/2012 4 to the provisions of section 90 of the Act to be read with the relevant treaty provisions. 3. For the sake of convenience, we first take up the appeals for assess