ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .................Respondent Through: Sh. N.P. Sahni and Sh. Nitin Gulati, Advocates. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. GAUBA MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) % 1. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act by the assessee, questions an order dated 30.05.2014 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereafter "ITAT") in ITA No.5623/Del/2010 for, the assessment year 200506 (AY). The ITAT by the impugned order disallowed the appellant‟s claim for certain deductions under Section 10A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter referred to as the "Act"). The following substantial questions of law are urged for this Court‟s determination in this appeal: (1) Whether an assessee is estopped under law from availing the benefits under Section 10A of the Act in respect of units for which it had not availed the said benefits previously, by treating such units as distinct ITA 46/2015 Page 1 undertakings as opposed to expanded units of a single undertaking (as was done earlier)? (2) Whether, on facts, the appellant's contention that the new units claimed by it to be separate undertakings for the purposes for Section 10A of the Act is correct? 2. The appellant is a public limited company engaged in providing software development services through its software development undertakings set up in the Software Technology Park (STP) in NOIDA and Chennai. During the relevant assessment year, the assessee/appellant had 31 independent software development units or undertakings set up at distinct locations. These were registered under 13 licenses with STP authorities. The appellant filed its original return of income on 31.10.2005, where gross business income of ` 2,58,17,15,909/ was shown and deduction under section 10A of the Act was claimed at ` 2,57,24,87,070/, considering 13 mother licenses issued by the STP authorities as 13 eligible undertakings or units. Net taxable business income was shown at ` 92,28,838/. 3. Later, the appellant filed its revised return of income on 30.03.2007, where deduction under section 10A of the Act was enhanced to ` 2,75,57,24,990/. The assessee now sought to treat 31 undertakings registered with STPI under 13 mother licenses as independent undertakings eligible for the said deduction, separately and individually. The return of income was accordingly, revised showing income from business or profession at ` 2,58,77,95,991/ and claiming deduction under section 10A of the Act at ` 2,75,57,24,990/, resulting in loss from business or profession of ` 16,79,29,000/. The assessee had filed certificates in Form 56F in support of its claim of deduction under Section 10A of the Act, ITA 46/2015 Page 2 claimed in original as well as in the revised return. In the original return the assessee had claimed deduction under Section 10A only in respect of 13 units and in the revised return number of units eligible for the benefits under section 10A was increased from 13 to 31 and separate Form 56F was filed for each of these 31 units. 4. The Assessing officer ("AO") in the assessment order dated 26.12.2008 for the relevant assessment year, disallowed the aforesaid additional deduction claimed under section 10A of the Act by way of revised return, inter alia, on the grounds that the units set up in the earlier years were mere expansion of the existing units; there was no separate approval as a new unit by the STPI authorities; and that the claim that the units set up were independent and separate new units, was raised belatedly which could not be gone into at this late stage. The AO, therefore, restricted the assessee‟s claim of deduction under section 10A of the Act to 13 "mother" (original) licenses/ undertakings instead of 31 independent and eligible units. 5. The appellant challenged the AO‟s order before the Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP"). The DRP, by its Order dated 30.09.2010, affirmed the AO‟s action and held that software dev