9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 668X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of 2013 G.A. No.3108 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 2-5-2014 - GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA AND ARINDAM SINHA, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. S.B.Saraf, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr.Ananda Sen, Adv. Mr.Anuran Samanta, Adv. JUDGMENT The subject matter of challenge in this appeal is a judgment and order dated April 30, 2013, by which the learned Tribunal, following an earlier decision allowed the claim of the assessee for exemption under section 10B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Tribunal, the Revenue has come up in appeal. Mr. Saraf, learned advocate appearing for the Revenue, submitted that the view taken by the learned Tribunal is patently contrary to the statute. In order to claim the benefit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y, Department of Science and Technology or his nomi nee. (7) Secretary, Technical Development, Directorate General of Technical Development or his nominee. (8) Chairman, Central Board of Excise and Customs or his nomi nee. (9) Development Commissioner, Small Scale Industries or his nominee. (10) Chief Controller of Imports and Exports or his nominee. (11) Secretary of the administrative Ministry concerned or his nominee. MEMBER-SECRETARY (12) Joint Secretary-in-charge of Secretariat for Industrial Appro vals. The assessee has relied upon, as would appear from the assessment order, the following : A letter was written to the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Directorate of Cottage and Small ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... court should not interfere with the order under challenge ; (b) in the event, this court is inclined to set aside the order, the matter should be remanded to the Assessing Officer to examine whether the assessee is entitled to any other benefit under the provisions of the Income-tax Act regard being had to the fact that the assessee is a hundred per cent. export oriented undertaking. The first submission of Mr. Sen cannot obviously be accepted. Mr. Saraf is right in contending that the learned Tribunal could not have rewritten the law nor could have accepted anything in lieu of what was required by the statute. Therefore, the view of the learned Tribunal is wrong and is, therefore, set aside. The second submission advanced by Mr. Sen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
