Need Tally
for Clients?

Contact Us! Here

  Tally Auditor

License (Renewal)
  Tally Gold

License Renewal

  Tally Silver

License Renewal
  Tally Silver

New Licence
  Tally Gold

New Licence
Open DEMAT Account with in 24 Hrs and start investing now!
From the Courts »
Open DEMAT Account in 24 hrs
 Inordinate delay in income tax appeal hearings
 Income Tax leviable on Tuition Fee in the Year of Rendering of Services: ITAT
 Supreme Court invoked its power under Article 142 of Constitution to validate notices issued under section 148 as notices issued under section 148A. However the same shall be subject to amended provisions of section 149.
 ITAT refuses to stay tax demand on former owner of Raw Pressery brand
 Bombay HC sets aside rejection of refund claims by GST authorities
 [Income Tax Act] Faceless Assessment Scheme does not take away right to personal hearing: Delhi High Court
 Rajasthan High Court directs GST Authority to Unblock Input Tax Credit availed in Electronic Credit Ledger
 Sebi-taxman fight over service tax dues reaches Supreme Court
 Delhi High Court Seeks Status Report from Centre for Appointments of Chairperson & Members in Adjudicating Authority Under PMLA
 Delhi High Court allows Income Tax Exemption to Charitable Society running Printing Press and uses Profit so generated for Charitable Purposes
 ITAT accepts Lease Income as Business Income as Business Investments were mostly in nature of Properties

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 2023 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Ritz Consulting