| COURT: |
|
| CORAM: |
|
| SECTION(S): |
|
| GENRE: |
|
| CATCH WORDS: |
|
| COUNSEL: |
|
| DATE: |
(Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: |
August 17, 2011 (Date of publication) |
| AY: |
|
| FILE: |
|
| CITATION: |
|
|
|
If AO has allowed s. 10A deduction, DRP cannot withdraw it
The assessee claimed deduction of Rs. 32.18 crores u/s 10A. The AO passed a draft assessment order u/s 144C in which he allowed s. 10A deduction though he reduced the quantum by Rs. 44.49 lakhs. When the assessee filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (“DRP”), it took the view that the assessee was not at all entitled to s. 10A deduction as it was engaged in “research & development”. On the alternative plea that the assessee was engaged in providing “engineering design services”, the DRP directed the AO to examine the claim on merits. The assessee filed a Writ Petition claiming that the directions given by the DRP was beyond jurisdiction. This was dismissed by the single judge. On appeal by the assessee, HELD allowing the appeal:
(i) As the AO had accepted that the assessee was eligible for s. 10A deduction and had only proposed a variation on the quantum, the DRP had no jurisdiction to hold that the assessee was not at all eligible for s. 10A deduction;
(ii) The DRP’s direction that the AO should decide the alternate claim of the assessee having regard to the material is also without jurisdiction. If such orders and directions are permitted to be allowed, it would defeat the object of the alternate dispute resolution.
Note: While u/s 144C(8), the DRP has no power to “set aside” the proposed variation or direct “further enquiry“, it is entitled to “enhance” the proposed variation.
Related Posts:
- India Convention and Culture Centre Pvt. Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi) As per the circle rate prescribed by the competent authority, the value of total assets i.e., the fair market value of the land which was converted from ‘agricultural’ into ‘institutional’ comes to Rs.113,00,72,749/-. If the other assets of Rs.9,17,608/- is added to such asset and the total liability of 46,55,69,537/-…
- UOI vs. U.A.E. Exchange Centre (Supreme Court) The meaning of expressions “business connection” and “business activity” has been articulated. However, even if the stated activity(ies) of the liaison office of the respondent in India is regarded as business activity, as noted earlier, the same being “of preparatory or auxiliary character”; by virtue of Article 5(3)(e) of the…
- Navin Jolly vs. ITO (Karnataka High Court) The usage of the property has to be considered for determining whether the property in question is a residential property or a commercial property. It is not in dispute that the aforesaid two apartments are being put to commercial use and therefore, the aforesaid apartments cannot be treated as residential…
- DIT vs. Autodesk Asia Pvt Ltd (Karnataka High Court) Before proceeding further, we may advert to well settled rules of Interpretation with regard to taxing statutes. The substitution of a provision results in repeal of earlier provision and its replacement by new provision. [See: U.P.SUGAR MILLS ASSN. VS. STATE OF U.P.’, (2002) 2 SCC 645]. The aforesaid principle of…
- Engineering Analysis Centre Of Excellence Private Limited vs. CIT (Supreme Court) Given the definition of royalties contained in Article 12 of the DTAAs mentioned in paragraph 41 of this judgment, it is clear that there is no obligation on the persons mentioned in section 195 of the Income Tax Act to deduct tax at source, as the distribution agreements/EULAs in the…
- M3M India Holdings Pvt. Ltd vs. ITSC (P&H High Court) For purposes of making an application for settlement, a case i.e. An assessment would be pending till such time as the assessment order is served upon the assessee. The declaration of law by this Court is binding on all authorities within the State including the Commission. The petitioner was entitled…
Leave a Reply