9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 547X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at financial year." 2. At the time of hearing before us, it is stated by the learned DR that during the year under consideration, the assessee got STPI (Software Technology Park of India) approval on 20th March, 2006. Thus, in view of the CBDT Circular No.1 dated 6th January, 2005, the receipt of the assessee after 20th March, 2006 was eligible for deduction under Section 10A. That the entire receipt of the assessee was before 20th March, 2006, therefore, she was not entitled to exemption under Section 10A, though she claimed the deduction amounting to Rs. 13,88,200/-. The claim of the assessee under Section 10A was patently wrong and false, therefore, in view of the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Commissione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unsel and the department. That the assessee claimed the deduction under Section 10A on the basis of a certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant. Thus, the assessee's claim was bona fide. That in the case of CIT Vs. Sandan Vikas (India) Ltd. vide ITA No.348/2011, the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court considered somewhat similar issue. In that case, the assessee claimed weighted deduction under Section 35AB. That the Assessing Officer allowed the deduction from the date on which assessee's research and development activity was approved by DSIR while the assessee's claim was that once the certificate is issued by DSIR, the entire expenditure incurred by the assessee was entitled to deduction under Section 35A. That the Hon'ble Jurisdic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h and development facility in India, the legislature has provided this provision to encourage the development of the facility by providing deduction of weighted expenditure. Since what is stated to be promoted was development of facility, intention of the legislature by making above amendment is very clear that the entire expenditure incurred by the assessee on development of facility, if approved, has to be allowed for the purpose of weighted deduction. 10. We are in full agreement with the reasoning given by the Tribunal and we are of the view that there is no scope for any other interpretation and since the approval is granted during the previous year relevant to the assessment year in question, we are of the view that the assessee is e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... products Pvt.Ltd. (supra) would be squarely applicable. 6. We have carefully considered the arguments of both the sides and perused the material placed before us. We find that the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Zoom Communication P.Ltd. (supra) relied upon by the learned DR considered the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts Pvt.Ltd. (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the assessee and held as under:- "In the case of Reliance Petroproducts P.Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 158 (SC), the addition made by the Assessing Officer in respect of the interest claimed as a deduction under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act was deleted by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) though it was later restor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bsolutely no foundation on which it could be made, the assessee would not be liable to imposition of penalty, even if he was not acting bona fide while making a claim of this nature, that would give a licence to unscrupulous assessees to make wholly untenable and unsustainable claims without there being any basis for making them, in the hope that their return would not be picked up for scrutiny and they would be assessed on the basis of self-assessment under section 143(1) of the Act and even if their case is selected for scrutiny, they can get away merely by paying the tax, which in any case, was payable by them. The consequence would be that the persons who make claims of this nature, actuated by a mala fide intention to evade tax otherwi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by us is whether the assessee's claim was bona fide or mala fide. 8. After considering the facts of the case and the arguments of both the sides, we are clearly of the opinion that the assessee's claim was bona fide. Admittedly, the assessee has fulfilled all the conditions for eligibility of deduction under Section 10A. Section 10A(1) provides deduction for ten consecutive years including the year in which the undertaking begins to produce computer software. There is no mention in Section 10A that the deduction would be permitted only in respect of receipt after the undertaking is approved by STPI. It is only CBDT in its Circular dated 6th January, 2005 stated that the deduction under Section 10A would be permissible only in respect of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
