Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

• DRP concluded that various obligations and procedures prescribed under SEZ scheme and regulations have not been adhered to for claiming benefit under section 10AA of the Act.

• DRP held that undertaking was not independent and they were formed by splitting up and reconstruction of business already in existence.

• DRP concluded that assessee failed to match the accounting invoices with the SOFTEX forms.

• DRP also held that assessee failed to produce invoices for verification.

However, Ld.Counsel also emphasized that, this is not a requirement to be satisfied for being eligible to claim deduction under section 10AA of the Act.

B.3. On the contrary, Ld.Standing Counsel appearing for revenue submitted that, replies filed by assessee with SEZ Authority regarding details of service provider who rendered services for transmission of data exported by assessee is inconsistent with submissions made by assessee for year under consideration. He vehemently supported observations of authorities below. B.4. In rejoinder, Ld.Counsel for assessee submitted that, authorities below have relied on replies filed by assessee, relating to export of software for year 2008-09. He submitted that, authorities below reproduced replies filed by assessee and notice issued by SEZ IT(TP)A No.725/Bang/2018 Asst.Yr.2013-14 authorities calling for details of service provider who assisted assessee for transmission of data. Referring to letter dated 10/10/2013 filed by assessee before Ld.AO reproduced at page 28 of impugned order, Ld.Counsel submitted that, for year under consideration, datacom service provider for international link was AT&T, whereas local link was Tata Tele Services and Bharathi. B.5. Ld.Counsel referring to the said letter, submitted that during initial days AT&T and VSNL had an arrangement to jointly offer Multiprotocol Switched Networking Services in India, as infrastructure of AT&T was co-located with VSNL. VSNL was therefore considered to be the parent service provider and was consistently mentioned in SOFTEX form. He submitted that though VSNL was being mentioned in SOFTEX form, the international traffic for software development export services was always being supported through AT&T. For assessee in India most of WAN links are owned and managed by AT&T and, access links where international traffic is carried out was also through AT&T. . Ld.Counsel submitted that all these evidences/details have been held to be inconsistent by authorities below. However, he again submitted that, for purposes of eligibility under section 10 AA of the Act, this alleged deficiency pointed out by Ld.AO is not of any relevance.

Therefore, respectfully following the same, this objection raised by authorities below is rejected at the thrushold. C. Non submission of accounting invoices to STPI/SEZ authorities, Non approval of units by SEZ authority:

C.1. Ld.Counsel submitted that accounting invoices raised on associated enterprises and SOFTEX invoices are submitted to STPI/SEZ authorities. It has been submitted that the work contract received from group entities, are executed through STPI unit's and finished work are exported there from, as evidenced in SOFTEX Forms. Referring to page 536 of paper book Volume 2, being SOFTES Form Ld.Counsel submitted that in Column-9, under 'Type of software exported', assessee selected, 'Software development'. Referring to page 539 being part of SOFTEX form. C.2. Ld.Counsel at this juncture, took us through written submission dated 7/12/2016, filed in paper book at page 416 of paper book, to demonstrate that, invoices raised could not be co- related with work carried out for a particular overseas client by assessee. Extract of procedure adopted by assessee as submitted in written submission dated 7/12/2016 are reproduced as under:

IT(TP)A No.725/Bang/2018 Asst.Yr.2013-14 C.4. Ld.Counsel submitted that, SOFTEX forms are required to be submitted for each STPI/SEZ locations separately, but is not applicable for on-site revenues. In view of composite nature of system generated accounting invoices, a split in composite invoices into offshore/on-site raised on STPI/SEZ location for filing of SOFTEX forms are carried out. Ld.Counsel thus submitted that SOFTEX invoices are separate and derived as a subsection of accounting invoices, but separately maintained for filing with STPI/SEZ authorities, with respect to offshore services only. On the basis of above complex procedure for invoicing, Ld.Counsel submitted that, it would not be possible to identify each invoices qua services rendered by assessee.