9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 146X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which the assessee claimed exemption - Section 10B is very clear and unambiguous that approval by the competent authority is pre-requisite for grant of benefit u/s 10-B - it will not be appropriate for the Tribunal to hold that there is no pre-condition that the assessee should have obtain STPI registration before making the claim u/s 10-B. The Circular is nothing but clarification of what the Section 10B really provides for - It is of no avail either to the assessee or to the Department when the provisions of Section 10-B is clear – following the decision in C.I.T. Vs. Gopal plastics Ltd. [1994 (10) TMI 12 - MADRAS High Court] - the assessee in this case will be entitled to the benefit of Section 10-B only on complying with the conditions contained prescribed in Section 10-B of the Income Tax Act, and it does not enure to the benefit for the AY in question, namely, 2005-06. - Decided in favor of revenue. - Tax Case (Appeal) No.1328 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 25-8-2014 - MR. R.SUDHAKAR AND Mr. G.M.AKBAR ALI, JJ. For the Appellant : Mrs. Hema Muralikrishnan, Standing Counsel for Income Tax For the Respondent : Mr. G. Ashokpathy JUDGEMENT (Delivered by R.SUDHAKA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant it is found that the appellant is engaged in the manufacturing and export of computer software and has commenced hundred percent export of computer software during the A.Y.2005-06. 7.2. It will not be out of place here to mention that it is a settled proposition often reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court that in cases where two views are possible, the one favourable to the assessee should be adopted. C.I.T Vs.Podar Cements Ltd. and another 226 ITR 625 (SC) and Mysore Minerals Ltd. Vs. C.I.T 239 ITR 775 (SC) 7.3 In view of the above facts and in the circumstances of the case, it is held that the appellant has fulfilled all the conditions specified u/s 10B and has correctly claimed deduction under that section. The Assessing officer, therefore was not justified in denying the claim of deduction, consequently, he is directed to allow the same as per the claim made by the appellant in the return of income. This ground of appeal is allowed. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 5. The Tribunal, after referring to the provision under Section 10B of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f any provision two view are possible, the one which favours the assessee has to be adopted. In this regard, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mysore Minerals (239 ITR 775) can be referred to. Hence the claim of the assessee correctly fits in the jacket formula laid down by section 10-B and the assessee is entitled to the impugned deduction. In our considered opinion, the learned Commissioner (A) has committed no error in directing the Assessing Officer to allow the claim of the assessee made under section 10-B of the Act. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the grounds of this appeal. Hence we dismiss the same. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the Revenue has preferred the present Tax Case (Appeal) raising the substantial question of law referred supra. 8. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue submits that Explanation 2 (iv) of Section 10B of the Income Tax Act defines 100% EOU as one approved by the Board. The ten year period commences from the date of such approval. She further submits that when the STPI registration itself was beyond the financial year, the assessee is not entitled to the benefit of exemption prior to the date o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the rules made under that Act 12. A reading of the above provision makes it clear that a 100% EOU as provided under Section 10B(1) will be one that is approved by the Board appointed in this behalf by the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 14 of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 (65 of 1951), and the Rules made under that Act. Admittedly, in this case, such approval was granted during May, 2005 only and therefore, prior to that date or the assessment year, relevant to the date of registration, the benefit of Section 10-B would not be available as the requirement of approval by the competent authority is not available as on the date, from which the assessee claimed exemption. Hence, we have no hesitation to hold that Section 10B is very clear and unambiguous that approval by the competent authority is pre-requisite for grant of benefit under Section 10-B. Hence, it will not be appropriate for the Tribunal to hold that there is no pre-condition that the assessee should have obtain STPI registration before making the claim under Section 10-B of the Income Tax Act. That finding of the Tribunal is totally wrong and contrary to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
