Subscribe to BCA Journal Know More

September 2010

S. 10B — For claiming deduction the assessee need not own the plant and machinery by itself.

By C. N. Vaze
Shailesh Kamdar
Jagdish T. Punjabi
Bhadresh Doshi
Chartered Accountants
Reading Time 2 mins
fiogf49gjkf0d

New Page 1

49 (2010) 124 ITD 249 (Delhi)

ITO v. Techdrive (India) (P.) Ltd.

A.Y. : 2002-03. Dated : 27-6-2008

S. 10B — For claiming deduction the assessee need not own the
plant and machinery by itself.

Facts :

The assessee is a private limited company. In its return of
income it claimed a deduction u/s.10B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) in
respect of export of computer software. During the scrutiny assessment, the AO
found that the assessee did not have any plant and machinery to develop any
computer software on its own. The computer software developing was done in the
premises of Seacom, the subsidiary of the assessee for which the assessee paid
‘software development charges’. According to the AO, one of the basic conditions
for claiming deduction u/s.10B is that the assessee company should have its own
infrastructure. He denied deduction u/s.10B of the Act.

The CIT(A) held that the assessee was entitled to exemption
u/s.10B.

Held :

On appeal, the ITAT allowed deduction u/s.10B on the
following grounds :

(1) Relying on various judgments, the ITAT held that it is
not required that the assessee company should itself own plant and machinery.
Even if the assessee gets the articles manufactured from some other person but
under the control and supervision of the assessee, it must be taken as if the
assessee is the manufacturer.

(2) Further the development of computer software is a very
specialised field which requires specialised education, skills, etc. It is not
a mechanical job and more than machines, it is human skills that count.

(3) Further, Circular 694, dated 23-11-1994 also supports
the assessee’s case. The Circular accepts that computer programmes are not
physical goods but are developed through a process of intellectual analysis.
It also recognizes that in some cases it is possible for the assessee to
produce software at the client’s premises. In such case, the software
personnel sent by the assessee would obviously use the client’s equipment
only.

You May Also Like