sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing | GST - Goods and Services Tax
Latest Expert Exchange
From the Courts »
  Oriental Bank Of Commerce Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax
  Suresh M. Jamkhindikar vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)
  Union of India vs. Pirthwi Singh (Supreme Court)
 Cromption Greaves Limited vs. CIT (ITAT Mumbai)
 Director Of Income Tax Vs. M/s. Modiluft Ltd.
 Director Of Income Tax Vs. M/s. Royal Airways Ltd.
 Lally Motors India (P.) Ltd vs. PCIT (ITAT Amritsar)
  Mehsana District Co-operative vs. DCIT (Gujarat High Court)
 Suresh M. Jamkhindikar vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)
 Union of India vs. Pirthwi Singh (Supreme Court)
  In Re Hiten Ramanlal Mahimtura (ITAT Mumbai)

ACIT-8(3), R.No.217, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Mumbai-020. Vs. M/s. Zenith Infotech Ltd, Zenith House, 30 MIDC, Central Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 093.
August, 31st 2015
                I.T.A. No. 6225/M/2012 (AY:2006-2007)
ACIT-8(3),                        / M/s. Zenith Infotech Ltd,
R.No.217, Aayakar Bhavan,                Zenith House, 30 MIDC,
M.K. Marg, Mumbai -020.                  Central Road, Andheri (E),
                                         Mumbai-400 093.
   ./ PAN : AAACZ0401B
( /Appellant)                                      ..       ( / Respondent)

         / Appellant by                       :         Shri Neil Philip, DR

        / Respondent by                        :        None

        / Date of Hearing                                   : 04.08.2015
        /Date of Pronouncement : 28 .08.2015
                                        / O R D E R


       This appeal filed by the Revenue on 10.10.2012 is against the order of the
CIT (A)-18, Mumbai dated 25.7.2012 for the assessment year 2006-2007. In this
appeal, Revenue raised the following grounds which read as under:

       "On the facts and in the circumstan ces of the case and in law, the Ld CIT (A) erred in
       directing the Assessing Officer to allow deduction u/s 80IB on the profit of Rs.
       58,68,989/- from traded goods without appreciating the finding of the AO.
                On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A)
       erred in directing the Assessing Officer to allow deduction u/s 80IB on the profit of
       traded goods without appreciating the fact that before the CIT (A), the assessee had
       itself conceded disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB to the extent of net profit of
       traded goods as against the disallowance of gross profit of traded goods made by the
       Assessing Officer."

2.     Briefly stated relevant facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in
the business of production and development of software. Assessee filed the return
of income declaring the total income of Rs. 1,66,34,581/- under the normal
provisions of the Act and Rs. 6,93,93,806/- as book profits u/s 115JB of the Act. In
the return of income, assessee claimed Rs. 35,36,67,618/- as deduction u/s 80IB of
the Act, which includes the traded goods turnover of Rs. 58,68,984/-. AO completed
the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act and the assessed income was
determined at Rs. 3,17,15,640/-. In the assessment, AO applied the MAT provisions
and held that the profit on ,,traded goods of Rs. 58,68,984/- is not eligible for
deduction u/s 80IB of the Act.               Accordingly, AO made a disallowance of Rs.
58,68,984/- and computed the revised deduction eligible u/s 80IB of the Act.
Aggrieved with the said decision of the AO, assessee is in appeal before the CIT (A).
3.      During the proceedings before the CIT (A), after considering the submissions
of the assessee, CIT (A) allowed the appeal.                 Para 2.3 of the CIT (A)s order is
relevant in this regard. Aggrieved with the said decision of the CIT (A), Revenue is
in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the above mentioned grounds.
4.      During the proceedings before us, Ld DR relied on the order of the AO and
stated that the deduction u/s 80IB is allowable only on the profits derived from the
,,industrial undertaking, the profits from the ,,trading cannot be said to be derived
from industrial undertaking and therefore, the decision taken by the AO is
5.      On the other hand, none appeared on behalf of the assessee to represent its
6.      We have heard the Ld DR for the Revenue and perused the orders of the
Revenue Authorities as well as the relevant material placed before us. On perusal of
the CIT (A)s order in general and contents of para 2.3 in particular, we find the
same are relevant to the issue under consideration. Considering the significance and
for the sake of completeness of this order, relevant portions from the said 2.3 of the
CIT (A)s order are extracted as under:-
                    The brought-out material is commonly referred to as ,,traded material since it
        is purchased from a supplier in standard for. However, it is to be noted that after
        integration of this brought out items in the production of software by the company, it
        (ie the brought-out material) loses its original form and gets merged with the
        software product as an inseparable content.
                    In view of the above, the plea of the appellant is allowed and the AO is
        directed to treat the same as eligible for deduction u/s 80IB as claimed by the

7.      As mentioned above, though the brought-out material is referred to as ,,traded
material, such material, which form an inseparable part like software products,
cannot constitute traded material and the same is eligible for deduction u/s 80IB of
the Act. Therefore, the CIT (A) has rightly adjudicated the issue and allowed the
claim of the assessee. In our opinion, the decision taken by the CIT (A) is fair and
reasonable and it does not call for any interference. Thus, the grounds raised by the
Revenue are dismissed.
8.    In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
      Order pronounced in the open court on      28th August, 2015.
      Sd/-                                                         Sd/-
(AMIT SHUKLA)                                              (D. KARUNAKARA RAO)
JUDICIAL MEMBER                                             ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
 Mumbai;                   28.8.2015
.../ OKK , Sr. PS

    /Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1.  / The Appellant
2.    / The Respondent.
3.    () / The CIT(A)-
4.     / CIT
5.    ,   ,  / DR,
     ITAT, Mumbai
6.     / Guard file.
                              //True Copy//

                                                    / BY ORDER,
                                          /  (Dy./Asstt. Registrar)
                                   ,   / ITAT, Mumbai
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2018 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Binarysoft Technologies - Our Team

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions