ACIT RG 10(3), MUMBAI v. MICRO TECHNOLOGIES (I) LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 3330/MUM/2009 | 2002-2003
Pronouncement Date: 31-03-2011 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 333019914 RSA 2009
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 3330/MUM/2009
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 11 day(s)
Appellant ACIT RG 10(3), MUMBAI
Respondent MICRO TECHNOLOGIES (I) LTD, MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 31-03-2011
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted I
Tribunal Order Date 31-03-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 10-03-2011
Next Hearing Date 10-03-2011
Assessment Year 2002-2003
Appeal Filed On 20-05-2009
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH I MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA (AM) AND SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAG HAVAN (JM) ITA NO. 3330 & 3331/MUM/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR- 2002-03 & 2003-04 THE DCIT RANGE 10(3) AAYAKAR BHAVAN MUMBAI-400 020 VS. M/S. MICRO TECHNOLOGIES (I) LTD. G-1/3 PREM JYOT COMPLEX CHEMBUR MANKHURD LINK ROAD GOVANDI MUMBAI-400 023 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI SANJEEV DUTT RESPONDENT BY: SHRI V.G. GINDE O R D E R PER ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN (JM) THESE TWO APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE DIRECTE D AGAINST THE ORDERS DT. 19.3.2009 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)-X FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-03 AND 2003-04. AS THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TO GETHER AND INVOLVED CONNECTED ISSUES BOTH OF THESE APPEALS AR E BEING DISPOSED OFF BY WAY OF THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. 2. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PUBLIC LTD. CO. ENGAGED IN SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT AND ALSO TRADING IN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PRODUCTS. THE ASSESSEE IS A UNIT REGIST ERED UNDER SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY PARK IN INDIA (STPI) AND IS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S. 10A OF THE I.T. ACT 1961 IN RESPECT OF PROFITS DERIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM EXPORT OF SOFTWARE FROM THE REGISTERED STPI UNIT. DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO A.Y. 2002-03 THE ASSESSEE HAS EXP ORTED SOFTWARE FROM THE STPI UNIT AND HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S. 10A OF THE I.T. ACT 1961. MICRO TECHNOLOGIES (I) LTD. 2 3. THE ITO PASSED ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S. 143(3) OF T HE I.T. ACT 1961 ALLOWING THE DEDUCTION U/S. 10A OF RS. 5 59 88 433/ - FOR THE A.Y. 2002- 03 AND RS. 1 44 91 035/- FOR A.Y. 2003-04 AS CLAIME D BY THE ASSESSEE. THE CASE WAS REOPENED U/S. 148 OF THE I.T. ACT 196 1. THE ITO HAS RECOMPUTED THE PROFIT U/S. 10A AT RS. 5 50 23 241/- FOR A.Y. 2002-03 AND RS. 1 41 73 578/- FOR A.Y. 2003-04 BUT DEDUCTIO N U/S. 10A HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED ON THE GROUND THAT THE RBI PERMISSI ON RECEIVED FOR CONVERTING THE EXPORTS PROCEEDS INTO EQUITY OF THE OVERSEAS ENTITIES DOES NOT AMOUNT TO EXPORT PROCEEDS RECEIVED IN FOREIGN C URRENCY. 4. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE TH E LD. CIT(A). BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE CONTE NDED AS FOLLOWS: DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE APPELLANT HA D REITERATED ITS STAND BEFORE THE AO THAT THE CONDITI ONS LAID DOWN BY SEC. 10A(3) STAND EFFECTIVELY FULFILLED WHEN THE EX PORT PROCEEDS WERE CAPITALIZED INTO EQUITY SHARES OF THE FOREIGN COMPA NIES WITGH THE APPROVAL OF THE RBI. ACCORDING TO THE APPELLANT T HE RATIO OF THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF J.B. BODA WAS APPLICABLE TO THE INSTANT CASE AS CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN BOTH THE SECTIONS I.E. 8 0-O AND 10A ARE SIMILAR AND THEREFORE IT WOULD BE INCORRECT TO STA TE THAT THE SAID DECISION IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE INSTANT CASE. M Y ATTENTION WAS ALSO DRAWN TO THE DECISIONS OF THE CIT(A) AND THE ITAT I N AN EXACTLY SIMILAR CASE PERTAINING TO THE GROUP COMPANY OF THE ASSESSEE UI.E. MICRO ASSOCIATES CONSULTANCY (I) PVT. LTD FOR THE A .Y. 2001-02 02-03 & 03-04. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IN THE APPEALS FOR THOSE YEARS THE CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. FUR THER THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) HAVE BEEN UPHELD BY THE ITAT. 5. THE LD. CIT(A) ALLOWED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: KEEPING IN VIEW THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF J.B. BODA AND THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN TH E CASE OF MICRO ASSOCIATE CONSULTANTS(I) PVT. LTD. THE DISALLOWANC E MADE BY THE AO IS DELETED AND THE AO IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE APPE LLANTS CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 10A. HOWEVER THE CLAIM OF THE APPE LLANT FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 10A IS TO BE RESTRICTED TO RS. 5 50 23 241/- FOR THE MICRO TECHNOLOGIES (I) LTD. 3 A.Y. 2002-03 AND RS. 1 41 73 578/- FOR THE A.Y. 200 3-04 FOR THE A.Y. 2003-04 AS THE APPELLANT HAS NOT CHALLENGED T HE ISSUE OF EXCESS ALLOWANCE GRANTED U/S. 10A AS DISCUSSED IN PARA 5 OF THE AOS ORDER. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED AS IN DICATED. 6. AGGRIEVED REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US AND RA ISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AS WELL AS IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE U/S. 10A TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 5 50 23 241/- FOR A.Y. 2002-03 AND FOR RS. 1 41 73 578 FOR A.Y. 2003- 04 WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE EXPORT PROCEE DS WERE NOT RECEIVED IN OR BROUGHT INTO INDIA BY THE ASSESSEE. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AS WELL AS IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF J.B. B ODA & CO. (P) LTD. (233 ITR 271) WITHOUT CONSIDERING THAT THE FACTS IN THAT CASE WERE DIFFERENT FROM THE FACTS IN THE PRESENT C ASE. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AS WELL AS IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN IGNORIN G THE PROVISIONS OF EXPLANATION 2 TO SUB. SEC. (3) OF SEC . 10A WHICH SPECIFIES WHAT CAN BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED IN INDIA AND IN NOT OBSERVING THAT SUCH DEEMING PROVISION IS NOT PRESENT IN SEC. 80-O ON WHICH THE SUPREME COURT HAD ADJUDICATED IN THE CASE OF J.B. BODA & CO. (P) LTD. 7. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SHRI V.G. GIND E RELIED ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF ZTKIG SYSTEMS LTD VS ITO 12 8 ITD 105 AND M/S. MICRO ASSOCIATES CONSULTANCY (I) P. LTD 8. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SHRI SANJEE V DUTT HAVE AN ELABORATE NOTE AS FOLLOWS: THAT THE THREE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED IN EACH APP EAL PERTAIN TO THE SAME ISSUE I.E. WHETHER THE INVESTMENT MAD BY T HE ASSESSEE IN EQUITIES OF FOREIGN CONCERNS OUTSIDE INDIA CAN B E DEEMED TO BE RECEIPT OF CONVERTIBLE FOREIGN EXCHANGE IN INDIA WI THIN THE MICRO TECHNOLOGIES (I) LTD. 4 MEANING OF SECTION 10A(3) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE ITAT SPECI AL BENCH CHENNAI IN THE CASE OF M/S. ZYLOG SYSTEMS LTD. V. I TO 128 ITD 105 (CHENNAI) (SB) AND THE DECISION OF HONBLE ITAT MUMBAI DATED 02.07.2008 IN ITA NO.1112/M/05 IN THE CASE OF ITS SISTER CONCERN NAMELY M/S. MICRO ASSOCIATES CONSULTANCY (I) PVT. LTD. FOR A.Y. 2001-02. FROM PERUSAL OF THE CASES CITED B Y THE ASSESSEE IT IS OBSERVED THAT BOTH THE DECISIONS HA VE BEEN RENDERED FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPR EME COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF J.B. BODA & CO. PVT. LTD. V. C BDT 223 ITR 271 (SC). THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF J.B. BODA & CO. PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) WAS RENDERED IN THE CO NTEXT OF SECTION 80-O WHEREAS THE PRESENT CASE DEALS WITH THE APPLIC ATION AND INTERPRETATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10A(3). IT MAY KINDLY BE APPRECIATED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 10A(3) AND SECTION 80-O ARE NOT PARI MATERIAL SO THAT THE RATIO OF J.B. BOD A & CO. PVT. LTD. IS DISTINGUISHABLE IN SO FAR AS MONEY WAS RECEIVED IN INDIA IN THAT CASE IN CONVERTIBLE FOREIGN EXCHANGE AND RETAINED B Y THE ASSESSEE AS COMMISSION OUT OF PREMIUM COLLECTED IN INDIA AND REMITTED ABROAD WHEREAS IN THE INSTANT CASE CONVERTIBLE FORE IGN EXCHANGE IS NOT AT ALL RECEIVED IN INDIA. THAT ANOTHER VITAL DISTINGUISHING FEATURE BETWEEN S ECTION 80-O AND SECTION 10A(3) IS EXPLANATION 2 BELOW SECTION 1 0A(3) WHICH READS AS UNDER :- THE SALE PROCEEDS REFERRED TO IN THIS SUB-SECTION SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED IN INDIA WHERE SUCH SA LE PROCEEDS ARE CREDITED TO A SEPARATE ACCOUNT MAINTAI NED FOR THE PURPOSE BY THE ASSESSEE WITH ANY BANK OUTSIDE I NDIA WITH THE APPROVED OF THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA. THERE IS NO SUCH PROVISION IN SECTION 80-O. IT IS C LEAR THAT EXPLANATION 2 BELOW SECTION 10A(3) DEALS WITH DEEM ED RECEIPT OF CONVERTIBLE FOREIGN EXCHANGE IN INDIA BY WAY OF CRE DIT OF SALE PROCEEDS OF EXPORTS IN A FOREIGN CURRENCY BANK ACCO UNT MAINTAINED OUTSIDE INDIA WITH THE APPROVAL OF RBI AND THEREFO RE ENACTS A LEGAL FICTION. SINCE THE LEGISLATURE IN ITS WISDOM HAS SP ELT OUT THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH SALE PROCEEDS OF EXPORT O F COMPUTER SOFTWARE MAY BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED IN IND IA BY VIRTUE OF EXPLANATION 2 IT WONT BE APPROPRIATE TO CARVE OUT ANY FURTHER LEGAL FICTIONS SO AS TO GIVE RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. SINC E EXPLANATION 2 HAS ALREADY TONED DOWN THE RIGOURS OF BRINGING THE CONV ERTIBLE FOREIGN EXCHANGE INTO INDIA NO FURTHER RELAXATION IS PERMI SSIBLE IN LAW. MICRO TECHNOLOGIES (I) LTD. 5 THAT IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT THE INTENTION OF THE L EGISLATURE IS PRIMARILY TO BE GATHERED FROM THE WORDS USED IN THE STATUTE. ONCE THE ASSESSEE COMES WITHIN THE LETTER OF LAW HE MUS T BE TAXED HOWEVER GREAT THE HARDSHIP MAY APPEAR TO THE JUDICI AL MIND TO BE. WHERE THE LANGUAGE OF THE ACT IS CLEAR AND UNAMBIGU OUS THERE IS NO SCOPE FOR IMPORTING INTO THE ACT WORDS WHICH ARE NO T THERE. SUCH IMPORTATION WOULD BE NOT TO CONSTRUE BUT TO AMEND THE STATUTE. EVEN IF THERE BE A CASUS OMISSUS THE DEFECT CAN BE REMEDIED ONLY BY LEGISLATION AND NOT BY JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION [ SMT. TARULATA SHYAM & ORS. V. CIT 108 ITR 345 (SC). IT IS ALSO WE LL ESTABLISHED THAT WHEN THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE IS CLEAR AND UNEQUIVOCAL THERE IS NO ROOM FOR TRYING TO GO BEHING THE CLEAR LANGUAGE OF THE SECTION. IN THE CASE OF A FISCAL ENACTMENT ONE HAS TO LOOK AT WHAT IS CLEARLY SAID. THERE IS NO ROOM FOR ANY INTENDMENT . NO ARGUMENT BASED ON HARDSHIP OR INCONVENIENCE CAN BE ENTERTAIN ED. RULE OF STRICT CONSTRUCTION DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE LANGUAGE OF THE PROVISIONS SHOULD BE TORTURED INTO MEANING SOMETHING ARTIFICIA L IF ITS NATURAL MEANING IS NOT REPUGNANT TO REASON (GLAXO LABORATOR IES (INDIA) LTD. V. ITO 26 TTJ (BOM) 214 (SB)]. IT MAY BE ARGUED THA T SECTION 10A BEING AN INCENTIVE PROVISION SHOULD BE INTERPRETED IN A LIBERAL MANNER. HOWEVER AS HELD BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF IPCA LABORATORY LTD. V. DCIT 266 ITR 521 (SC) EVEN THOUGH A LIBERAL INTERPRETATION HAS TO BE GIVEN TO AN INCENTIVE PROV ISION THE INTERPRETATION HAS TO BE AS PER THE WORDINGS OF THE SECTION. IF THE WORDINGS OF THE SECTION ARE CLEAR THEN BENEFITS WH ICH ARE NOT AVAILABLE UNDER THE SECTION CANNOT BE CONFERRED BY IGNORING OR MISINTERPRETING WORDS IN THE SECTION. THAT AS HELD BY THE HONBLE ITAT HYDERABAD BENCH I N THE CASE OF ACIT V. BODHTREE CONSULTING LTD. (2010) 41 SOT 2 30 (HYD.) REPATRIATION OF THE RECEIPTS IS THE MAIN CONDITION FOR AVAILING THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 10B [SECTION 10B (3) IS IDENTICA L TO SECTION 10A(3)]. AVOWED OBJECT OF THIS SECTION IS TO ENCOURAGE INFLO W OF CONVERTIBLE FOREIGN EXCHANGE. ROLE OF THE RBI IS LIMITED TO GRA NTING EXTENSION OF TIME PERIOD WITHIN WHICH THE MONEY IN FOREIGN EXCHA NGE CAN BE BROUGHT INTO INDIA. FACT THAT THE RBI HAS GIVEN PER MISSION TO THE ASSESSEE TO UTILIZE FOREIGN EXCHANGE IN THE FORM OF EQUITY INVESTMENT IN FOREIGN COMPANIES DOES NOT LEAD TO THE CONCLUSIO N THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED EXPORT PROCEEDS IN CONVERTIBLE FO REIGN EXCHANGE. THE INVESTMENT IN EQUITY SHARES BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOTHING BUT AN APPLICATION OF ITS SALE PROCEEDS WITHOUT BRINGING T HE SAME INTO INDIA IN THE FORM OF CONVERTIBLE FOREIGN EXCHANGE. IT APP EARS THAT THE SAID DECISION OF HONBLE ITAT HYDERABAD BENCH WAS NOT BR OUGHT TO THE KIND NOTICE OF THE HONBLE CHENNAI SPECIAL BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S. ZYLOG SYSTEMS LTD. (SUPRA). MICRO TECHNOLOGIES (I) LTD. 6 THAT THE ASSESSEE CAN CLAIM THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 10A(3) ONLY IF IT CAN DEMONSTRATE WITH THE HELP OF COGENT EVIDENCE THAT ITS CASE IS COVERED UNDER EXPLANATION 2 SO AS TO BE TREATED AS A DEEMED RECEIPT OF CONVERTIBLE FOREIGN EXCHANGE IN INDIA. SINCE EXPLANATION 2 BELOW SECTION 10A(3) DOES NOT REGARD AS DEEMED REC EIPT A CASE OF CAPITALIZATION OF FOREX EARNINGS FOR INVESTMENT IN EQUITY SHARES OF FOREIGN COMPANIES THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE HELD TO B E ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S.10A IN RESPECT OF SUCH AMOUNT. THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS IF THE ASSESSEE IS HELD TO BE ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S. 10A IN VIE W OF THE DECISIONS CITED IN PARA 1 ABOVE SUCH CLAIM MAY KINDLY BE ENT ERTAINED SUBJECT TO THE ASSESSEE SATISFYING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TH AT THE AMOUNT REPATRIATED TO INDIA AS WELL AS RETAINED OUTSIDE IN DIA IS AS PER PREVAILING RBI GUIDELINES AND THAT CONVERTIBLE FORE IGN EXCHANGE HAD BEEN REALIZED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE FOREIGN PART IES ABROAD WITHIN THE PERIOD SPECIFIED IN SECTION 10A(3) OF THE ACT. 9. WE FIND THAT IN THE CASE OF J.B. BODA & CO. PVT. LTD. VS CBDT 223 ITR 271 IT HAS BEEN HELD AS FOLLOWS: A TWO-WAY TRAFFIC IS UNNECESSARY. TO INSIST ON A FORMAL REMITTANCE FIRST AND THEREAFTER TO RECEIVE THE COMM ISSION FROM THE FOREIGN REINSURER WILL BE AN EMPTY FORMALITY A ND A MEANINGLESS RITUAL ON THE FACTS OF THIS CASE. 10. FURTHER THE TRIBUNAL A BENCH IN THE CASE OF I TO VS M/S. MICRO ASSOCIATES CONSULTANCY (I) PVT. LTD. IN ITA NO. 11 12/M/05 IT HAS BEEN HELD AS FOLLOWS: THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE AO WHEREAS THE LD. AR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). WHILE BRIE FING THE FACTS THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE EXPORT SALE PROCEEDS HAVE BEEN ADJUSTED AGAINST THE AMOUNT TO BE REMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE T O THE FOREIGN COMPANIES FOR ACQUIRING EQUITY SHARES IN THOSE COMP ANIES BY APPELLANT. THE CAPITALIZATION OF EXPORT SALE PROCE EDS WAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PERMISSION GRANTED BY THE RBI. THE LD. AR WHILE REFERRING TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE FO J.B. BODA & CO. 223 ITR 271 SUBMITTED THAT THE C OURT HAS VERY CLEARLY HELD THAT A TWO WAY TRAFFIC IS UNNECESSAR Y. TO INSIST ON A FORMAL REMITTANCE TO THE FOREIGN REINSURERS FIRST A ND THEREAFTER TO RECEIVE THE COMMISSION FROM THE FOREIGN REINSURER WILL BE AN EMPTY FORMALITY AND A MEANINGLESS RITUAL. MICRO TECHNOLOGIES (I) LTD. 7 WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIE S AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE CASE MADE OUT BY THE REVEN UE AUTHORITIES IS THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT RECEIVE THE CONVERTIBLE F OREIGN EXCHANGE IN INDIA WHEREAS THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S. 10A IN RESPECT OF PROCEE DS DERIVED FROM THE EXPORT OF COMPUTER SOFTWARE AND HAS RECEIVED FO REIGN EXCHANGE IN THE FORM OF CAPITALIZATION AGAINST THE SALE PROC EEDS BY ACQUIRING EQUITY SHARES IN THOSE FOREIGN COMPANIES WHICH WAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PERMISSION GRANTED BY RBI. WE NOTICE THAT THE CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE FOLLOWI NG THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF J.B. BODA & CO. (SUPRA). IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. 11. HOWEVER WE FIND SOME FORCE IN THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. DRS ALTERNATE REQUEST THAT THE CLAIM U/S. 10A BY THE AS SESSEE BE ENTERTAINED SUBJECT TO THE ASSESSEE SATISFYING THE AO THAT SUCH CLAIM MAY KINDLY BE ENTERTAINED THAT THE AMOUNT REPATRIATED TO INDIA AS WELL AS RETAINED OUTSIDE INDIA IS AS PER PREVAILING RBI GUIDELINES A ND THAT CONVERTIBLE FOREIGN EXCHANGE HAD BEEN REALIZED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE FOREIGN PARTIES ABROAD WITHIN THE PERIOD SPECIFIED IN SECTI ON 10A(3) OF THE ACT. HENCE WE REMIT THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO V ERIFY WHETHER CONVERTIBLE FOREIGN EXCHANGE HAS BEEN REALIZED BY T HE ASSESSEE FROM THE FOREIGN PARTIES WITHIN THE PERIOD SPECIFIED IN SEC. 10A(3) OF THE ACT AND IF SO TO ALLOW DEDUCTION U/S. 10A. 11. IN THE RESULT THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 31 ST DAY OF MARCH 2011 SD/- SD/ (R.K. PANDA) (ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI DATED 31 ST MARCH 2011 RJ MICRO TECHNOLOGIES (I) LTD. 8 COPY TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT-CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A)-CONCERNED 5. THE DR I BENCH TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR I.T.A.T MUMBAI MICRO TECHNOLOGIES (I) LTD. 9 DATE INITIALS 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON: 17 . 0 3 .201 1 SR. PS/PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR: 21 .0 3 .2011 ______ SR. PS/PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER: _________ ______ JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER: _________ ______ JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS: _________ ______ SR. PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON: _________ ______ SR. PS/PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK: _________ ______ SR. PS/PS 8. 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK: DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO AR _________ ______ 10 . DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER: _________ ______