Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The grounds raised by the revenue are as under.

"1. The Order of DRP is opposed to law and facts of the case.

2. The DRP erred in directing the AO to deduct freight, insurance and telecommunication from total turnover and export turnover while computing the eligible deduction U/s 10 A. as this is against the provisions of section 10A.

3. The DRP ought not to have admitted regularized FIRC's/ Softex forms of Rs.14,84,16,444/- without calling for remand report.

19.2 On the other hand the assessee claimed that AO ought to have appreciated that the software solution services are in the nature of computer software as defined in explanation (2) (i) to section 10A of the Act. The assessee further claimed that the learned AO has failed to appreciate that the unit is providing software solution services after obtaining valid registration from STPI authorities. The AO ought to have considered the fact that the STPI authorities have accepted the Softex forms submitted and the endorsement made by the authority confirms software services being rendered from the unit and that a procedural lapse like not ticking the code in the Softex form cannot be the basis to disallow the entire claim of deduction.

19.3 On perusal of the ground of objection along with all the material placed on record it is clear that the AO has not appreciating the fact that the company had claimed deduction of profits earned from the Pune unit under section 10A-for-the earlier AY/s and the same has not been questioned. The AO has also not appreciated the fact that the export of computer software and IT enabled service falls within the code 907 provided in point 9 of the Softex form without appreciating that all the codes in point 9 of the Softex are for export of software. The Pune unit of the company provides software solutions to Dell global BV Singapore and such services include services like software quality assurance, software testing etc. which are in the nature of computer software as defined in explanation (2)(i) to section 10A of the Act. The nature of services rendered to Dell global BV Singapore is detailed in the service agreement of the company.

19.5 In view of the above, the grounds of objections are accepted."

24. From the draft assessment order as reproduced above, we find that from the reply submitted by assessee before the AO which is reproduced by the AO also on pages 7 and 8 of draft assessment order as reproduced above, it is seen that this is the reply of the assessee that initially the company has raised the IT(TP)A Nos. 53 & 86/Bang/2014 invoices based on the call log report, wherein the bill amount was computed on the basis of number of minutes of call multiplied by a fixed rate and subsequently at the end of the year in March, an additional component being referred to as bonus would be billed for the services rendered and billed already. Now in the light of this reply, we examine the relevant invoices which is available on page no. 577 to 591 of paper book and we find that all these invoices are raised in the month of April and May, 2008. When as per the assessee's reply itself, the invoices for difference raised in the month of March, then the said explanation of the assessee is not relevant in respect of these invoices which are raised in the month of April and May 2008. Further this is also not clear from the invoices as to when the services were actually rendered for which Bonus is billed in the month of April and May 2008, what are the nature of services which were rendered for which these bonus invoices are raised is also not clear. It is also noted by the AO in the draft assessment order that in the present case, from the invoices submitted by assessee company, it is revealed that the assessee company has charged some service charges from sister concerns and this was not listed as ITES in the relevant notification. The AO has also noted that the SOFTEX did not specify about any ITES. When these objections were raised by AO before the assessee, the assessee has submitted reply dated 26.03.2013 as per which the assessee has given a vague reply that the Pune unit of assessee company provides software solutions to Dell global BV Singapore and such service include services like software quality assurance, software testing etc. and the same would be categorized under Others (IT and ITES) in point 9(a) of the Softex forms. It is also submitted by assessee before the AO that assessee company has inadvertently missed to tick the appropriate nature of services provided through the Pune STPI unit. This is also submitted by assessee before the AO that 12 Softex forms were submitted by assessee company with the Pune STPI authorities out of which 9 Softex forms are endorsed by the Pune STPI authorities and in respect of the remaining Softex forms, the assessee filed a letter seeking the endorsed copy of Softex filed. This was the submission of the assessee before the AO that mere inadvertent error of not completing the information sought in the Softex forms should not be considered as the ultimate IT(TP)A Nos. 53 & 86/Bang/2014 test to allow the deduction u/s. 10A of the Act. The DRP has simply reproduced these submissions of assessee before the AO and decided the issue in favour of the assessee and even the result of submission of the assessee before STPI authorities for endorsing of the Softex forms which were having mistakes as per the assessee was not insisted upon. Even before us, this is not shown that the STPI authorities of Pune has endorsed such Softex forms which were defective as per the assessee. Under these facts, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee has not satisfied the requirement of law regarding allowability of deduction u/s. 10A for Pune unit. Hence we reverse the order of DRP on this issue and restore the order of AO in draft assessment order on this issue. Accordingly, ground nos. 4 and 5 of the revenue's appeal are allowed.