ITO, New Delhi v. M/s. Techno Fast Consulting (P) LTd., Gurgaon

ITA 1555/DEL/2010 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 19-09-2010 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 155520114 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN AABCT6955F
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 1555/DEL/2010
Duration Of Justice 5 month(s) 10 day(s)
Appellant ITO, New Delhi
Respondent M/s. Techno Fast Consulting (P) LTd., Gurgaon
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 19-09-2010
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted H
Tribunal Order Date 19-09-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 19-08-2010
Next Hearing Date 19-08-2010
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 08-04-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH H : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI A.D.JAIN JM AND SHRI R.C.SHARMA AM ITA NO.1555/DEL/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-16(2) NEW DELHI. VS. M/S TECHNO FAST CONSULTING (P) LTD. 209 UDYOG VIHAR PHASE-I GURGAON. PAN NO.AABCT6955F. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI AMREHDRA KUMAR DR. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI R.S.SINGHVI CA. ORDER PER R.C.SHARMA AM : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) DATED 20.1.2010 FOR THE AY 2006-07 IN THE MATTER OF ORDE R PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE IT ACT. 2. THE ONLY GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE RELATES TO ALL OWING CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 10A OF THE IT ACT. 3. RIVAL CONTENTIONS HAVE BEEN HEARD AND RECORD PER USED. FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS REGISTERED WITH STPI. IT EXECUTED WORK FOR MULTINATIONAL COMPANY IN RESPECT OF TECHNICAL ASSIG NMENT. IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO THAT THE COMPANY HAS ALL THE INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIRED TO EXECUTE SUCH WORK IN INDIA BY WAY OF A STATE OF ART OFFICE AT GURGAON . DURING THE YEAR THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED MONEY IN FOREIGN EXCHANGE FROM M/S PANASON IC EUROPE LTD. THE AO DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 10A ON THE PL EA THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT PROVIDED SERVICES ON HIS OWN BUT THROUGH ASSOCIATED CONCERNS AND THAT EMPLOYEES WERE NOT TECHNICALLY AND PROFESSIONALLY QUALIFIED. IT WAS ALSO OBJECTION OF THE AO ITA-1555/DEL/2010 2 THAT SERVICES HAVE NOT BEEN PROVIDED AT ITS OWN SIT ES OR AT THE CLIENTS PREMISES. ACCORDINGLY ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S 10A WAS DECLINED. 4. BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER CIT(A) ALLOWED ASSESSEES CLAIM BY RELYING ON THE PROPOSITION OF LAW LAID DOWN IN THE CASE OF TECHDRI VE (INDIA) (P) LTD. 25 SOT 152 ITAT DELHI BENCH. IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE CIT( A) THAT ASSESSEE HAS SENT ITS PERSONNEL AS SERVICES WERE RENDERED TO PANASONIC EU ROPE LTD. AT ITS SITE OFFICE WITH THE HELP OF ITS ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISE M/S TFC GMBH. AFTER DISCUSSING THE PROPOSITION OF LAW LAID DOWN IN THE CASE OF TECHDRI VE (INDIA) (P) LTD. (SUPRA) AND APPLYING THE SAME TO THE FACTS OF INSTANT CASE THE CIT(A) ALLOWED ASSESSEES CLAIM U/S 10A AGAINST WHICH REVENUE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS GONE T HROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND FOUND FROM THE RECORD THAT TH E ASSESSEE COMPANY IS REGISTERED WITH STPI AND EXECUTED WORK FOR MULTINAT IONAL COMPANY IN RESPECT OF TECHNICAL ASSIGNMENT. THERE IS NO DISPUTE TO THE FA CT THAT ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS ALL THE INFRASTRUCTURE TO EXECUTE SUCH WORK IN INDIA. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO EMPLOYED QUALIFIED PEOPLE IN INDIA TO EXECUTE WORK FROM INDI AN OFFICE AT GURGAON. THE WHOLE ASSIGNMENT WAS SUPERVISED CONTROLLED AND MAN AGED FROM INDIA. THE DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ALONGWITH THE TECH NICAL HEADS HAVE ALSO VISITED HAMBURG GERMANY FOR DISCUSSION MEETINGS AND SUPER VISION OF WORK. ALL THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN DEPUTED TO THE CLIENTS SITE A RE INDIAN PASSPORT HOLDERS AND GOT THE SALARY FROM THE INDIAN COMPANY FOR PROVIDIN G SERVICES AT THE CLIENTS PLACE. ITAT DELHI BENCH IN THE CASE OF TECHDRIVE (INDIA) ( P) LTD. (SUPRA) OBSERVED THAT U/S 10B IT IS NOT THE REQUIREMENT OF LAW THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY SHOULD HAVE ITS OWN PLANT MACHINERY OR EQUIPMENT AND MANUFACTURE O R PRODUCE COMPUTER SOFTWARE ON THE SAME IN ORDER TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR EX EMPTION. BY REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT AND THE HIGH COUR T IT WAS ALSO HELD THAT EVEN IF ASSESSEE GETS THE ARTICLES MANUFACTURED BY ANOTH ER PERSON BY USING PLANT AND MACHINERY OWNED BY THAT PERSON AND BY PAYING HIM SO ME CHARGES FOR THE HIRE AND ITA-1555/DEL/2010 3 USE OF THE MACHINERY BUT UNDER THE CONTROL AND SUP ERVISION OF THE ASSESSEE WHO SUPPLIED THE RAW MATERIALS ETC. IT MUST BE TAKEN A S IF THE ASSESSEE IS A MANUFACTURER. BY COMPARING THE PROPOSITION LAID DO WN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THIS CASE THE CIT(A) RECORDED A FINDING TO THE EFFECT T HAT FACTS ARE SIMILAR AND THE AO HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY OTHER RESTRICTIVE PRO VISIONS LAID DOWN U/S 10B. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AN D FOUND THAT FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE INSTANT CASE ARE PARI-MATERIA WITH THE FACTS DISCUSSED BY ITAT IN CASE OF TECHDRIVE (INDIA) (P) LTD. (SUPRA) RESP ECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE O RDER OF CIT(A) FOR ALLOWING CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 10A OF THE ACT. 6. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S DISMISSED. DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19 TH SEPTEMBER 2010. SD/- SD/- (A.D.JAIN) (R.C.SHARMA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 19.09.2010. VK. COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ITAT DEPUTY REGISTRAR ITA-1555/DEL/2010 4