Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai
Dcit, Chennai vs Servion Global Solutions Ltd., Chennai on 23 November, 2016
आयकर अपील
य अ धकरण, 'सी' यायपीठ, चे नई
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
'C' BENCH, CHENNAI
ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, या यक सद य एवं
ी अ ाहम पी.जॉज%, लेखा सद य केसम(
BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND
SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.2010/Mds/2016
नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Year : 2009-10
The Deputy Commissioner of M/s Servion Global Solutions Ltd.,
Income Tax, v. Plot No.4/600 & 4/197, 7th Street,
Corporate Circle 6(1), Dr. VSI Estate, Phase II,
Chennai - 600 034. Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai - 600 034.
PAN : AAACI 0947 F
(अपीलाथ-/Appellant) (./यथ-/Respondent)
अपीलाथ- क0 ओर से/Appellant by : Shri Sasikumar, JCIT
./यथ- क0 ओर से/Respondent by : Sh. N. Devanathan, Advocate
सन
ु वाई क0 तार
ख/Date of Hearing : 13.10.2016
घोषणा क0 तार
ख/Date of Pronouncement : 23.11.2016
आदे श /O R D E R
PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal of the Revenue is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 15, Chennai, dated 18.03.2016 and pertains to assessment year 2009-10.
2. Shri Sasikumar, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the only issue arises for consideration is exemption claimed by the assessee under Section 10A of the Income-tax Act, 2 I.T.A. No.2010/Mds/16 1961 (in short 'the Act'). According to the Ld. D.R., STP I unit has not satisfied the condition stipulated under Section 10A of the Act. The employees of both the units STP I and II are one and the same. The product, service and infrastructure are also the same. Therefore, according to the Ld. D.R., the assessee is not eligible for exemption. Referring to the order of the CIT(Appeals), the Ld. D.R. submitted that the CIT(Appeals), by placing her reliance on the order of this Tribunal, allowed the claim of the assessee.
3. We have heard Sh. N. Devanathan, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, also. The Ld.counsel submitted that similar argument was advanced on behalf of Revenue for the assessment year 2005- 06 and this Tribunal, by following its earlier order, allowed the claim of the assessee, therefore, it is covered in favour of the assessee.
4. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. The objection of the Ld. D.R. is that STP I unit and non-STP unit are using the same infrastructure, employees, etc. This was examined by this Tribunal in the assessee's own case, for the earlier assessment year, and this Tribunal found that the assessee is eligible for exemption under Section 10A of the Act. In view of the above order of this Tribunal, there is no reason to take a different view for the year under 3 I.T.A. No.2010/Mds/16 consideration. Therefore, by placing reliance on the order of this Tribunal for the earlier assessment year, this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority and accordingly the same is confirmed.
5. The Revenue has raised one more ground with regard to exclusion of foreign currency expenditure from the export turnover.
6. Even though no argument was advanced from either side, this Tribunal finds that both denominator and numerator shall be the same. Therefore, once the expenditure incurred in foreign currency was excluded from total turnover, the same is also to be excluded from export turnover. Therefore, this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority and accordingly the same is confirmed.
7. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced on 23rd November, 2016 at Chennai.
sd/- sd/-
(अ ाहम पी.जॉज%) (एन.आर.एस. गणेशन)
(Abraham P. George) (N.R.S. Ganesan)
लेखा सद य/Accountant Member या यक सद य/Judicial Member
चे नई/Chennai,
rd
7दनांक/Dated, the 23 November, 2016.
Kri.
4 I.T.A. No.2010/Mds/16
आदे श क0 . त8ल9प अ:े9षत/Copy to:
1. अपीलाथ-/Appellant
2. ./यथ-/Respondent
3. आयकर आय;
ु त (अपील)/CIT(A)-15, Chennai-34
4. आयकर आय;
ु त/CIT-6, Chennai-34
5. 9वभागीय . त न ध/DR
6. गाड% फाईल/GF.