Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Cap Gemini Consulting India Pvt. Ltd ... vs Assessee
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI BENCHES "L", MUMBAI
Before Shri R.S.Syal, AM and Shri V.Durga Rao, JM
ITA Nos.1509 & 6467/Mum/2006, 1682/Mum/2009 : Asst.Years 2002-2003,
2003-2004 and 2004-2005
M/s.Cap Gemini Consulting India Pvt.Ltd. The Asstt.Commissioner of Income-tax
(Formerly Cap Gemini Ernst & Young Circle 10(2)
Con. India P.Ltd.) Mumbai.
Vs.
C/o.Kalyaniwalla & Mistry
th
Kalpataru Heritage, 5 Floor
127, Mahatma Gandhi Road
Fort, Mumbai - 400 023.
PA No.AAACE2443A.
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by : S/Shri M.M.Golvala, Akram Khan & Zareer Mehta
Respondent by : Shri Narender Singh (CIT-DR)
ORDER
Per R.S.Syal, AM :
These three appeals by the assessee relate to assessment years 2002-2003, 2003-2004 and 2004-2005. Since these appeals involve some common issues, we are therefore, proceeding to dispose them off by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.
Assessment Year 2002-2003
2. First four grounds about deductibility of expenses were not pressed by the learned A.R. These grounds, therefore, dismissed as not pressed.
3. Ground no.5 is against the confirmation of levy of interest u/s.234D.
4. Having heard both sides and perused the relevant material on record we find that this issue is no more res integra in view of the Special Bench order in the case of ITO Vs. Ekta Promoters P.Ltd. [(2008) 113 ITD 719 (Del.) (SB)] holding that provisions of interest u/s.234D inserted with effect from 1st June, 2003 have no 2 ITA Nos.1509 & 6467/M/06, 1682/M/09 M/s.Cap Gemini Consulting India Private Limited.
retrospective effect. The learned A.R. has placed on record a copy of the unreported judgement of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT Vs. Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. dated 15th April, 2009 holding that interest u/s.234D cannot be charged in respect of refunds granted prior to 01.06.2003. In this case the Hon'ble High Court has held that section 234D has been inserted with effect from 01.06.2003 and hence does not have any retrospective effect. As the assessment year under consideration is 2002-2003, naturally the provisions of section 234D would not be attracted. This ground is allowed.
5. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
Assessment Year 2003-2004
6. Ground nos.1 to 4 about deductibility of expenses were not pressed by the learned A.R. These grounds, therefore, dismissed as not pressed.
7. Ground no.5 about Transfer Pricing adjustment u/s.92C was also not pressed by the learned A.R. which is again dismissed as not pressed.
8. Ground no.6 is against not granting of deduction u/s.80HHE on a sum of Rs.16,62,613 credited to the profit and loss account as "unbilled revenue". The Assessing Officer did not grant deduction on the above referred sum representing the amount credited as unbilled revenue to the profit and loss account on the ground that the invoices in this respect were raised after the end of the year. The learned CIT(A) echoed the assessment order on this point on the ground that the bills for the same were raised after the year ending.
9. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. In our considered opinion the learned CIT(A) has rightly appreciated the facts in denying the deduction u/s.80HHE for the reason that the bills in respect of this amount were not raised in this year and as stated by the learned A.R. it was 3 ITA Nos.1509 & 6467/M/06, 1682/M/09 M/s.Cap Gemini Consulting India Private Limited.
only work in progress. Obviously in such a situation this amount cannot be considered as part of `turnover' and the resultant allowability of deduction u/s.80HHE is not possible. We, therefore, uphold the view taken by the learned CIT(A) on this issue. This ground fails.
10. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
Assessment Year 2004-2005
11. Ground nos.1 to 4 about deductibility of expenses were not pressed by the learned A.R. These grounds, therefore, dismissed as not pressed.
12. Ground no.5 is against not granting of deduction u/s.80HHE on a sum of Rs.39,46,430 credited to the profit and loss account as "unbilled revenue".
13. Both the sides are in agreement that the facts and circumstances of this year are mutatis mutandis similar to those of assessment year 2003-2004. Following the view taken hereinabove we uphold the order of the learned CIT(A). This ground is dismissed.
14. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
Order pronounced on this 27th day of December, 2010.
Sd/- Sd/-
(V.Durga Rao) (R.S.Syal)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Mumbai : 27th December, 2010.
Devdas*
4 ITA Nos.1509 & 6467/M/06, 1682/M/09
M/s.Cap Gemini Consulting India Private Limited.
Copy to :
1. The Appellant.
2. The Respondent.
3. The CIT concerned
4. The CIT(A) - X, Mumbai.
5. The DR/ITAT, Mumbai.
6. Guard File.
TRUE COPY.
By Order Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Mumbai.