IN HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 750/2014 & CM NO. 20412/2014 Date of decision: 15th December, 2014 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV ..... Appellant Through Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Advocate. versus M/S OKS SPAN TECH PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent Through Nemo. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL): There is delay of 400 days in re-filing of present appeal. However, before issuing notice on application for condonation of delay, we deem it appropriate to examine merits. 2. This appeal by Revenue pertains to Assessment Year 2007-08 and impugns order dated 16th November, 2012 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal, for short). 3. assessee company filed its e-return, declaring income of Rs. 5,18,353, on 25.10.2007. assessee claimed deduction amounting to Rs.3,03,94,780/- under section 10B of Income Tax Act,1961 (Act, for short) in respect of income derived from its 100% export oriented units, situated at Chennai and Gurgaon. said two units were engaged in business of export of computer software. ITA 750/2014 Page 1 of 3 4. Assessing Officer disallowed claims under section 10B for two reasons. Firstly, he held that development and export of computer software was not eligible under Section 10B as assessee had not produced or manufactured any good, articles or thing. aforesaid reasoning of Assessing Officer has been rightly rejected by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as Tribunal in view of circular No. 794 dated 9.8.2000 issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes and amendment in Section 10B w.e.f 1.4.2001. In fact, Revenue has not raised said issue in present appeal. 5. second ground given by Assessing Officer was that assessee having two separate units eligible under section 10B was required to file two separate reports in form 56G in respect of each unit, whereas assessee had submitted only one auditor report in form 56G for both of its two units, i.e., unit located at Chennai and Gurgaon. 6. Section 10B(5) of Act reads :- 10B. XXXXXXX (5) deduction under sub-section (1) shall not be admissible for any assessment year beginning on or after 1st day of April, 2001, unless assessee furnishes in prescribed form, along with return of income, report of accountant, as defined in Explanation below sub-section (2) of section 288, certifying that deduction has been correctly claimed in accordance with provisions of this section. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [(C.I.T(A), for short], reversing findings of Assessing Officer, has referred to Form 56G ITA 750/2014 Page 2 of 3 as filed and had recorded that Chartered Accountant in form No. 56G, had bifurcated and computed income derived from exports of software for Gurgaon and Chennai Unit, separately. requisite information and details for each unit as per mandate of section 10B were duly furnished and filed. Thus full particulars and details had been separately provided in respect of both units. It was immaterial whether assessee furnished separate form for each unit or full and complete details of each unit were furnished separately but in single form. ITAT has affirmed said reasoning given by C.I.T (A). 7. It is apparent that bifurcation of exempt income for each unit was clearly stated and given. It is not case of revenue that certain aspects were not clear or concealed or eligible profits of each unit could not be ascertained. No such assertion and contention is raised. Copy of form has also not been filed. view taken by Revenue is hypertechnical and does not merit issue of notice in present appeal. 8. In view of aforesaid, we are not inclined to issue notice on application for condonation of delay in re-filing and as sequitur, appeal itself will be treated as dismissed. SANJIV KHANNA, J. V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. DECEMBER 15, 2014 VKR ITA 750/2014 Page 3 of 3 Commissioner of Income-tax-IV v. M/s. OKS Span Tech Pvt. Ltd