ACIT Vs Rajshri Shah (ITAT Ahmedabad)
Assessee, engaged in exporting IT-enabled medical & pharma data-processing services, had originally been allowed deduction u/s 10B. Later, PCIT invoked revision u/s 263 & directed AO to re-examine the 10B claim & also consider the alternate claim u/s 10A. Tribunal, in earlier proceedings in ITA No.925/Ahd/2014, upheld the 263 action only for this limited purpose & issued a binding direction requiring AO to examine Assessee’s 10A claim on merits.
In the fresh order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 254 on 16.03.2016, AO rejected the 10A claim merely because Form 56F was not filed with the return & the claim was not made originally, without examining any substantive eligibility—such as STPI approval, export of services or foreign-exchange realisation. CIT(A) found that AO had completely ignored the binding Tribunal direction & had rejected the claim purely on procedural grounds. CIT(A) therefore restored the matter to AO for full verification of 10A conditions & proper computation.
In Revenue’s appeal, Tribunal held that pendency of a Tax Appeal before High Court against the earlier Tribunal order does not dilute its binding nature unless stayed. Since AO failed to carry out the mandate of the earlier order, the remand ordered by CIT(A) was proper. Tribunal upheld CIT(A)’s decision in full & dismissed Revenue’s appeal.
