Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

b) The Ld. AO ought to have appreciated that the Appellant had submitted the listing of invoices along with relent FIRCs and endorsed softex forms for Chennai SEZ unit and hence, was eligible for deduction under section 10AA of the Act.

c) The Ld. AO has erred in not considering the submissions made by the Appellant during the assessment proceedings, wherein the Appellant had furnished all the records/documents substantiating its claim.

IT(TP)A No.2846/Bang/2017 M/s. Dell International Services India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore . d) The Ld. AO has erred in not following the directions provided by the Hon'ble DRP vide its order dated 19 September 2017, wherein the Hon'ble DRP had directed to verify the records and provide relief accordingly.

17.1 The ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee had claimed a sum of Rs. 18,14,03,235/- as deduction under Section 10AA of the Act in respect of its SEZ unit at Chennai. It is submitted that the claim for deduction under Section 10AA of the Act commenced in the year 2010-11 when the Chennai unit was part of the erstwhile company i.e., Perot Systems Business Process Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. which was subsequently merged with the Assessee's company.

17.2 She submitted that the Perot was engaged in the business of process outsourcing services in the nature of data processing and software development since 1998. Until 2009, Perot had two units, one in Chennai and one in Coimbatore. Perot later set up a third unit in Chennai in a Special Economic Zone ("SEZ") and was registered with the SEZ authorities in 2008 and the said unit commenced its activities in the year 2009. Thereby, FY 2009-10 was the first year of claim of deduction under Section 10AA of the Act for the Chennai SEZ unit. The claim of Perot came to be disallowed by the Assessing Officer in the year AY 2010-11 on the ground that (i) the Softex forms were not certified by the SEZ/STPI authorities; (ii) the Chennai unit was formed by splitting up or reconstruction of a business already in existence and; (iii) the unit did not export any computer software. Following the order for AY 2010-11, the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim for the present assessment year also, on the basis that there was no change in the facts. The DRP remanded the issue to the Assessing Officer with a direction to verify the information furnished by the Assessee and thereafter make a disallowance, if any deficiencies were found in the information furnished.

IT(TP)A No.2846/Bang/2017 M/s. Dell International Services India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore 17.3 She further submitted that similar disallowance was made in the Assessee's case for assessment year 2012-13 on the basis of the order for assessment year 2010-11. She submitted that this Tribunal vide its order dated 14.11.2022 in Dell International Services India Private Limited, (for the merged entity Dell India Private Limited) v. JCIT for the assessment year 2012-13 in IT(TP)A No. 932/Bang/2017 held that submission of Softex form and certification of the said form by the STIP authorities is a post facto procedure prescribed by the Reserve Bank of India and not a pre-requisite under Section 10AA. With respect of the denial of claim on the ground that the Chennai Unit was formed by splitting up of the existing units, this Tribunal held that condition set out in Section 10(4) of the Act regarding formation are to be established only in the year of formation. With respect to denial of claim on the ground that no evidence for data transmission or export of computer software was given by the Assessee, this Hon'ble Tribunal held that the denial of export benefits merely due to non-availability of International Private Leased Circuit connection when the evidence for rendering of services, invoicing for the services done and realisation of foreign currency are established, is not justified.

56. In assessee's case details of the invoices along with the corresponding FIRCs mapping are furnished by the assessee before the lower authorities to substantiate that the export proceeds are received by the assessee (pages 958-977 of the paper book). We also notice that the AO has denied the deduction, based on the findings of AY 2010-11 by stating that some of the SOFTEX forms are not certified and that the Bank of America has not sent any reply. However, there was no adverse finding recorded by the AO with regard to the SOFTEX forms and there is no discussion of the documents submitted by the assessee for the year under consideration. Further, copies of the invoices and softex forms submitted to the authorities and the letters addressed to them requesting endorsement are furnished by the assessee before is in the additional evidence (pages 1-42 of the additional evidence compilation). In view of this we remit the issue to the AO to verify the evidences submitted keeping in mind the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Microsemi India (P.) Ltd (supra) that submission of Softex Form and certification of the said form by STPI is a post facto procedure prescribed by the Reserve Bank of India to ensure timely and appropriate collection of export proceeds and is not a pre-requisite under Section 10AA.