IN THE ITAT, DELHI BENCH
R.K. PANDA, A.M. & SUCHITRA KAMBLE, J.M.
DCIT v. Ebix Software India (P) Ltd.
I.T.A. Nos. 5274 & 5275/Del/2017
30 September, 2020
Assessee by: Gautam Jain, Advocate
Revenue by: Nidhi Srivastava, CIT, DR
R.K. Panda, A.M.
The above two appeals filed by the Revenue are directed against the separate Orders, dated 30-5-2017 of the Commissioner (Appeals)-3, New Delhi relating to assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15, respectively.
2. Since common issues are involved in both these appeals, therefore, these were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
ITA No. 5274/Del/2017 (Assessment Year 2013-14)
3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a wholly owned subsidiary of Ebix Singapore Pvt. Ltd. and is engaged in the business of rendering information technology/information technology enabled services (IT/ITES). It filed its return of income on 30-11-2013 declaring nil income after claiming deduction of Rs. 226,98,41,758 under section 10AA of the Income Tax Act. However, the assessee has paid tax under section 115JB on book profit of Rs. 205,06,58,504. Since the assessee had entered into certain international transaction, the assessing officer referred the matter to the TPO for determination of the ALP of the international transaction.
However, the TPO did not draw any adverse inference in respect of such international transaction undertaken by the assessee. So far as the other issues are concerned, the assessing officer, after considering the various replies given by the assessee, rejected the claim of deduction under section 10AA of the Act made by the assessee in respect of income from six SEZ units and made addition of Rs. 226,98,41,758.
Similarly, the assessing officer made addition of Rs. 82,88,099 on account of other income from four SEZ units. The assessing officer further made addition of Rs. 8,40,46,029 by rejecting the claim of depreciation on goodwill. Thus, the assessing officer determined the total income of the assessee at Rs. 212,44,62,496.
4. In appeal, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) deleted the additions made by the assessing officer.
5. Aggrieved with such order of the Commissioner (Appeals), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal.
6. Ground of appeal No. 1 by the Revenue reads as under :--
'1. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred on law and on the facts of the case in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,26,98,41,758 made by the assessing officer on account of business income from 6 units.'
6.1 So far as ground No. 1 is concerned, the facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee has claimed deduction of Rs. 226,98,41,758 under section 10AA of the Act in respect of four eligible business undertakings, i.e., Noida SEZ, Nagpur SEZ, Coimbatore SEZ and Hyderabad SEZ, the details of which are as under :--