9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 546X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Technology P. Ltd. V/s. ACIT [2011 (1) TMI 1275 - ITAT HYDERABAD] followed - the assessee have been registered with the STPI, is entitled for deduction u/s 10B of the Act – thus, there was no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) – Decided against Revenue. - ITA No. 1501/Hyd/2011 - - - Dated:- 10-4-2012 - Shri D. Karunakara Rao And Shri Saktijit Dey,JJ. For the Appellant : Dr. B. V. Prasad Reddy For the Respondent : Shri S. Venkateswara Rao ORDER Per D. Karunakara Rao, Accountant Member: This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of the CIT(A)-IV Hyderabad dated 30.6.2011 for the assessment year 2005-06. 2. The only grievance of the Revenue in this appeal is against the action of the CIT(A), i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n under S.10B means an undertaking which has been approved as a hundred per cent export oriented undertaking by the Board appointed in this behalf by the Central Government under S.14 of Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951. He therefore, observed that the statutory board approval by the Board as a 100% EOU has to be obtained for availing exemption under S.10B. He held that 100% EOU under STPI Scheme cannot be equated with 100% EOU approval by the Board, and for this purpose, he palced reliance on Infotech Enterprises Ltd. V/s. JCIT (85 ITD 325). Further, the assessing officer observed that the assessee could not substantiate its claim in respect of deductions under S.10B with necessary documentary evidences in respect of its e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unal in the following cases- (a) VSN Makro Technology P. Ltd. V/s. ACIT (ITA No.1057/Hyd/2010) dated 13.1.2011, wherein the still earlier decision of the Tribunal in the cse of Infotech Enterprises Ltd. (supra), relied by the assessing officer in the impugned assessment order has been considered and the same has been held to be inapplicable as the same has been rendered prior to issuance of Instruction No.1 dated 31.3.2006 by the CBDT and letter dated 23.3.2006 issued by the Ministry of Communications and Technologies. (b) DCIT V/s. Valliant Communication Ltd. (ITA No.2706/Del/2008 dated 23.4.2010) (2010-TIOL-452-ITAT-Del), wherein the still earlier decision of the Delhi Bench in the case of ITO Vs. Regency Creations Ltd. (ITA No.4006 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
