9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (5) TMI 851 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance of exemption claimed u/s 10B - CIT(A) deleted the additions - Held that - The facts of the present case are similar to the facts in the case of ITO Vs Efextra Esolutions Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi (2012 (8) TMI 895 - ITAT DELHI), which the ld. CIT(A) has followed while allowing the claim of the assessee. The assessee fulfilled all the conditions for 100% tax exemption u/s 10B of the Act which was earlier granted u/s 143(1) of the Act. The conditions laid down for exemption u/s 10A of the Act are similar to the exemption u/s 10B of the Act. Therefore, the AO should have allowed the claim of the assessee u/s 10A of the Act which was earlier claimed under a bonafide belief u/s 10B of the Act. We, therefore, do not see any valid ground to interfere with the findings of the ld. CIT(A) - Decided in favour of assesse.
Issues:
Appeal against CIT(A)'s order allowing deduction u/s 10B, failure to furnish documents for deduction u/s 10A, reliance on Form 56F, applicability of Goetze India Ltd. case, eligibility for deduction u/s 10A, similarity to Efextra Esolutions Pvt. Ltd. case, comparison with other case laws, fulfillment of conditions for deduction u/s 10A. Analysis: The Appellate Tribunal ITAT DELHI heard three appeals by the department against separate orders of CIT-XXVIII, New Delhi, involving common issues. The appeals challenged the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions made by the AO on account of disallowance of exemption claimed by the assessee under section 10B. The AO denied the claim as the assessee had not received approval by the board as a 100% export-oriented undertaking. The CIT(A) allowed the claim, citing the requirement of filing Form 56-F for revising the claim under section 10A. The Tribunal analyzed various case laws, including Goetze India Ltd., to determine the eligibility of the assessee for the claim under section 10A. The Tribunal found that the claim made by the assessee was not an altogether fresh claim, and thus, the Goetze India Ltd. case did not apply. The Tribunal referred to other judgments supporting the assessee's case and held that the CIT(A) correctly allowed the claim under section 10A. The department's appeal was rejected based on the legal position and case law analysis. The department contended that the assessee did not furnish relevant documents within the specified time to support the claim for deduction under section 10A, leading to the AO's denial of the claim. The counsel for the assessee argued that the case was similar to Efextra Esolutions Pvt. Ltd. and JC Infosoft Technologies Ltd. cases, where the claim was allowed. The Tribunal noted the similarity to the Efextra Esolutions Pvt. Ltd. case and the decision of the ITAT Delhi Bench 'D' in the JC Infosoft Technologies Ltd. case, which supported the assessee's claim. The Tribunal referred to judgments like CIT Vs Valiant Communications Ltd. and CIT Vs Regency Creation to establish the validity of the claim under section 10A. As the assessee fulfilled all conditions for tax exemption under section 10B, which were similar to section 10A, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the claim under section 10A, dismissing the department's appeals. In conclusion, the Tribunal's detailed analysis of the legal provisions, case laws, and factual circumstances led to the rejection of the department's appeals. The judgment emphasized the importance of fulfilling statutory requirements and the applicability of relevant case laws in determining the eligibility of the assessee for the claimed deduction under section 10A.
|
