Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

20. Regarding ground nos. 4 and 5, it was submitted by ld. DR of revenue that the issue regarding disallowance of deduction u/s. 10A for Pune STPI unit by assessee company has been discussed and decided by DRP as per para 19 to 19.5 of the order of DRP. Thereafter she pointed out that as per draft assessment order, it is noted by the AO in para IV on page no. 7 that the invoice copies and SOFTEX submitted by the assessee company did not mention about the particulars of computer software / IT enabled service. She further pointed out that this is also noted by AO in the same para that RBI has given certain codes to regularize the SOFTEX and export of computer software. As per the RBI code, the export computer software and IT enabled service are governed under the Code 907. But as per the SOFTEX submitted by assessee company of Pune unit, it did not mention about the nature of service rendered and the columns were not duly filled. She further pointed out that it is also noted by the AO that none of the invoices were raised against any IT enabled service listed in the notification SO890[E] dated 26.09.2000 and all the invoices were raised towards software solution. Thereafter she drawn our attention to page no. 11 of the draft assessment order and it was pointed out that it is noted by the AO on this page of the draft assessment order that in order to claim the tax benefit u/s. 10A of IT Act, the assessee company should have either developed software or rendered IT enabled service given in the notification IT(TP)A Nos. 53 & 86/Bang/2014 referred on the same page of the draft assessment order but it is noted by the AO that in the present case, the invoices submitted by assessee company has revealed the fact that the company has charged some service charges for software solutions from the sister concerns and this particular item was not listed as IT enabled service in the notification referred to by the AO. She submitted that in spite of this categorical finding of AO in the draft assessment order, the DRP has decided the issue in favour of the assessee on this basis that the assessee company had claimed deduction on profits earned from the Pune unit u/s. 10A for the earlier years also and the same has not been questioned. Thereafter the DRP has given a finding in para 19.4 that mere error of not completing the information sought in the Softex forms cannot be considered as the ultimate test to disallow the deduction under section 10A of the Act. She submitted that the order of DRP should be reversed and that of AO in the draft assessment order should be restored. As against this the ld. AR of assessee supported the order of DRP. It was submitted by ld. AR of assessee that copy of letter dated 26.03.2013 is available on pages 451 to 463 of paper book and in particular, our attention was drawn to page no. 455 of the paper book where the assessee's claim regarding deduction u/s. 10A for Pune unit has been explained and it was pointed out that in the copy of invoices submitted before the AO, it was noticed by the AO that certain invoices have a component of "bonus on ink and toner" and in this regard, the AO asked for clarification on the nature of such component in the invoices and it was submitted by assessee before the AO that the company has raised the invoices based on the call log report, wherein the bill amount would be worked out as number of minutes of call multiplied by 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. He further pointed out that this was explained that this is an additional billing done for services already rendered and regarding the description as "ink and toner" it was explained that the same is based on the name of cost center under which the concerned transactions are recorded. He also submitted that on page no. 577 of the paper book is the relevant invoices wherein there is an item "Bonus on IT(TP)A Nos. 53 & 86/Bang/2014 Ink and Toner" relating to $3,18,150. He submitted that under these facts, the order of DRP should be affirmed.

21. We have considered the rival submissions. First of all we reproduce the relevant para from the draft assessment order which reads as under.

"IV. As far as Pune unit is concerned it is to be mentioned here that this unit was registered initially on 5.3.2006. On 31.3.2007 i.e. 1.4.2007 the company has acquired net assets of ACS Info Solution Pvt Ltd and god fresh registration from 31.3.2007. The invoice copies and softex submitted by the company did not mention about the particulars of computer software / IT enabled service. The RBI has given certain codes to regularize the softex and export of computer software. As per the RBI code the export computer software and IT enabled service are governed under the Code 907. The softex submitted by assessee company of Pune unit did not mention about the nature of service rendered and the columns were not duly fined. Further it is also noticed that none of the invoices were raised against any IT enabled service Listed in the notification S0890[E] dated 26.9.2000. All the invoices were raised towards software solution. It is also noticed that the invoice did not mention about the purchase orders or contract agreements.

However the above said reply is not acceptable. The invoices are clearly revealed a fact that the company was received certain bonus on ink and toner. The said amount was received as a bonus only in the Month of April and May. All the invoice copies are enclosed as Annexure-1 to the order. When the company has raised the invoice bonus on ink and toner the other submission given by the company are not acceptable. As far as realization of export proceeds are concerned in many cases the softex were not endorsed. Each and every softex, invoice and the realization are thoroughly examined in the presence of the AR.

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.