9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 922X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e kept open for being considered in some appropriate matter. With the aforesaid, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC) held that the claim of deduction not made in the return cannot be entertained by the Assessing Officer otherwise than by filing a revised return? (d) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT is justified in holding that the reopening is not valid, without appreciating the fact that reopening of the case on the basis of factual error pointed out by the Audit party is permissible under the law as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. P.V.S. Beedies Pvt. Ltd. (1999) 237 ITR 13 (SC)? (e) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT is justified in allowing the grounds challenging the validity ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hort]. The contention of the Revenue is that, the assessee had not produced the approval by the Board appointed for such purpose by the Central Government in exercise of powers conferred under Section 14 of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, as required under Explanation 2 Clause (iv) to Section 10B of the Act. 3. Learned counsel Mr. Patel for the Revenue vehemently contended that the assessee had obtained such approval certificate from the Director, Software Technology Park of India, which may be a Government of India Authority cannot substitute the authority prescribed in Clause (iv) to the said explanation. 4. This contention we are not inclined to examine in view of the fact that, admittedly, in the first year ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mical Industries Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat-V reported in 123 ITR 669 and a later judgement in Tax Appeal No. 1367 of 2010 dated 14.09.2011 in case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s. T.J.Agro Fertilizers Pvt. Ltd. 5. In the result, tax appeal is dismissed." 5. Thus, so far as the question as regards the claim under Section 10B of the Act is concerned, the findings recorded by the Tribunal cannot be faulted. So far as the other questions as proposed by the Revenue are concerned, those are kept open for being considered in some appropriate matter. 6. With the aforesaid, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. 7. We clarify that the Tax Appeal No.439 of 2016 referred to above, came to be dismissed on the ground ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
