9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 920X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of entitlement as per the provisions prior to the amendment. The observation of the Tribunal in its order dated 06.03.2019 is error apparent. It clear that for the unexpired period of entitlement of deduction u/s. 10A the assessee would be entitled to the said claim, even if it relates to IQF, provided the assessee had made claim u/s 10A and the A.O. had granted deduction for the assessment year s prior to amendment. The above view was also taken by the Hon ble High Court in assessee s own case [ 2018 (8) TMI 985 - KERALA HIGH COURT] . The judgment of the Hon ble High Court, regarding 10A deduction claim that it is entitled to IQF with regard to processing of prawns undertaken by the assessee for the unexpired period of 10 consecutive y ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .A. reads as follow:- 1. The H'ble ITAT, Cochin Bench passed an order on 06.03.2019, on the direction given by the H'ble Kerala High Court vide order dt. 07.08.2018 on an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the H'ble ITAT, on the grounds relating to deduction u/s.80HHC and claim u/s.10A of the Income Tax Act. 2. In the order of H'ble High Court of Kerala, in respect of the claim u/s.1OA of the Act, the H'ble Court vide para 4, directed the H'ble ITAT as under: 4. The respondent-assessee submits that they also have a valid claim under Section 1OA of the Act. They can claim it before the Tribunal as has been provided in (1998) 229lTR 383 ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 06.03.2019. In the said order, the Bench held that in principle the assessee is eligible to benefit of claim u/s.1OA of the Act for the AY 2002- 03, even after the amendment of sec.10A. However, in the said order, in para 5, the H'ble Bench stated as under: 5.1 Therefore, going by the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court, the assessee would be entitled to the claim of deduction u/s 1OA of the I T.Act for the unexpired period, i.e., assessment year 2002-2003 in respect of exports to Exports House other than IQF. The quantification of the amount that the assessee is entitled for deduction u/s 1OA of the I T.Act for the relevant assessment year has to be computed by the Assessing Off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 06.03.2019 requiring rectification. Hence, it was prayed that the present M.A. filed by the assessee be dismissed. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. To understand the issue raised in this Miscellaneous Petition, it is necessary to reproduce the relevant direction of the Hon ble High Court in judgment dated 07.08.2018 (ITA No.219/2010). The same read as follows:- 4. The respondent-assessee submits that they also have a valid claim under Section 10A of the Act. They can claim it before the Tribunal as has been provided in (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC) [NTPC v. CIT]. However if the claim is with respect to Individual Quick freezing (IQF), the same cannot be termed to be a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the benefit of claim u/s. 10A of the Act for the assessment year 2002-2003, even after amendment to section 10A of the I.T. Act. Further, the ITAT stated that deduction u/s. 10A of the I.T. Act cannot be granted if it relates to Individual Quick Freezing (IQF), even though it relates to unexpired period of entitlement as per the provisions prior to the amendment. The observation of the Tribunal in its order dated 06.03.2019 is error apparent. We make it clear that for the unexpired period of entitlement of deduction u/s. 10A of the I.T. Act, the assessee would be entitled to the said claim, even if it relates to IQF, provided the assessee had made claim u/s 10A of the I.T.Act and the A.O. had granted deduction for the assessment year s pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o in this sub-section only for the unexpired period of the aforesaid ten consecutive assessment years. Admittedly, the assessee had been enjoying the benefit prior to Finance Act, 2000 on the basis of the provision as it existed before substitution. The proviso makes it clear that such persons who had the benefit prior to substitution would be entitled to deduction referred to in the sub-Section for the unexpired period of the ten consecutive assessment years; as available in the un-amended provision. 5. The Revenue had attempted to argue before the Tribunal that the continuation of the deduction would be with reference to sub-Section (1), which was substituted. We are unable to agree with such a contentio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
