9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 382X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t year 2004-05, Rs. 1,61,27,322/- for assessment year 2006-07 and Rs. 1,61,27,322/- for assessment year 2007-08. 2. The assessee is a public limited company registered under the Companies Act engaged in the business of manufacturing and export of Telecom Transmission Equipments. It had only one unit registered with Software Technology Park of India, Department of Electronics, Ministry of Communications, as a 100% Exports Oriented Unit under Electronic Hardware Technology Park (EHTP) Scheme. It had continuously claimed deduction u/s 10B of the I.T. Act from assessment year 2003-04 onwards. Before the AO, the assessee company submitted its registration/approval copy received from the EHTP Scheme. The AO, however, rejected the claim of deduc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the learned CIT(A) has erred in placing reliance on Instruction No.1/2006, though the same has no bearing to section 10B of the Act; that the ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the said Instruction has actually been issued for the purpose of Explanation 9(vii) of Section 10 A of the Act so as to clarify as to what a STP would mean for the purposes of that Section; that a bare reading of the said Instruction makes it clear that the said Instruction is applicable only qua the purpose of Explanation 9(vii) of Section 10 A of the Act and not for Section 10B of the Act; that the ld. CIT(A) has remained oblivious to the fact that the said Instruction does not, in any manner, either modify or obviate or amend the requirements of Explanatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ior to Instruction No. 1 dated 31.3.2006 issued by the CBDT. Before us, reliance was placed on the Tribunal decision rendered in the case of "ITO v. Regency Creations Ltd." In ITA No. 4006(Del)2006 dated 13.4.2006 and copy of this Tribunal decision has been submitted. In this Tribunal decision, it was held that registration granted by STPI for setting upto 100% EOU under Software Technology Park Scheme is valid for allowing deduction u/s 10B. The relevant para of this Tribunal decision is para No. 5 which is reproduced below:- "We have considered the rival contentions and found from the record that the assessee has established a software division under the name and style of Maxtech Solutions which was approved and registered with the STPI, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... el that having decided in assessment year 2004-05 that the assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 10B, it cannot be denied in this subsequent year on the basis that the assessee is not an 100% EOU for the reason that necessary approval is not with the assessee. This is against the rule of consistency. For this reason also, we decline to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT(A). 8. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. 9. Now, we take up the cross objection of the assessee. 10. The ground raised by the assessee in the cross objection read as under:- "In the alternative and without prejudice to the claim made under section 10B of the Act, if it is held that the assessee is not eligible to the claim of deduction u/s 10B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
