Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Bangalore Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,, ... vs M/S Infosys Bpo Ltd, Bangalore on 27 September, 2019 ITA Nos.1333 & 1367(B)/2014 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES :"B", BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT.BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.1333(Bang)/2014 (Assessment year : 200708) The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle11(4), Bangalore Appellant Vs M/s Infosys BPO Ltd., Building 48, 4th Floor, No.26/3, 26/4 & 26/6, Electronic City, Hosur Road, Bangalore560 0100 Pan No.AACCP4478N Respondent And ITA No.1367(B)/2014 (Assessment year : 200708) (By Assessee) Appellant by : Shri P.C. Khincha, CA Revenue by : Miss. Neera Malhotra, CIT, DR Date of hearing : 15072019 Date of pronouncement : 27092019 ORDER PER SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER : Present appeal has been filed by assessee as well as revenue against order dated 30/06/14 passed by Ld. CIT (A)1, Bangalore for assessment year 200708 on following grounds of appeal: ITA Nos.1333 & 1367(B)/2014 2 ITA No.1333/B/2014( Assessment Year : 2007 08 1. The order of the CIT (A) is opposed to law and the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The learned CIT (A) has erred in applying the decision of the Visakapatnam Special bench of the ITAT in the case of Merilyn Shipping & Transports v ACIT 16 ITR (Trib) 1 and in holding that section 40(a)(i) / 40(a)(ia) is applicable only on amounts payable at the end of the relevant year without apppreciating that the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) do not restrict its application to the outstanding amounts as at the end of the previous year but to all such payments made or credited during the year, without deduction of tax at source. 3. The CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the Visakapatnam Special bench of the ITAT has made an attempt to write its own statute rather than interpret the statute. 4. The CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to follow the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Court in the case of Tata Elxsi Limited 349 ITR 98 and exclude the telecommunication charges incurred in foreign currency from the total turnover also while computing the deduction u/s 10A of the I.T. Act, without appreciating the fact that there is no provision in Section 10A that such expenses should be reduced from the total turnover also, as clause (iv) of the explanation to Section 10A provides that such expenses are to be reduced only from the export turnover. ITA Nos.1333 & 1367(B)/2014 3 5. The CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the jurisdictional High Court's decision in the case of Tata Elxsi Limited 349 ITR 98 has not been accepted by the department and an appeal has been filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 6. The CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to follow the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Court in the case of YOKOGAWA INDIA LTD. in 341 ITR 385(Kar) and allow the claim of the assessee of the deduction u/s 10A without setting off the losses of other units without appreciating the fact that the decision of the Karnataka High Court has not reached finality as a SLP has been preferred against the said decision. The CIT(A) erred hi directing the AO to allow the claim of the assessee of the deduction u/s Section .10A without setting off the losses of other units by relying on the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of yokogawa India Limited without appreciating the fact that the relief allowed is a deduction and not an exclusion from the total income which is also clarified by the Board's Circular No. 7/DV/2013. 7. For these and such other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, it is humbly prayed that the order of the CIT(A) be reversed and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 8. The appellate craves to ad, to alter, to amend or delete any of the grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal. ITA No.1367/B/2014 (Assessment year : 200708) 1.The ord