TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 474X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the technical services outside India should not be included – Decided against revenue. Allowability of deduction u/s 10A – STPI permission not obtained - Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that commencement of production on 23.10.1997 i.e., before obtaining STPI permission which was done subsequently on 23.12.1997 and after commencement of production - Held that:- The three conditions to be fulfilled for getting the benefit u/s 10A are the assessee should begin to manufacture or produce articles or things or computer software on or before the 1st day of April 1994 in software technology park, and it is not formed by the splitting up or the reconstruction of a business already in existence and it is not formed by the transfer to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 23.12.1997 and after commencement of production the same was done outside the customs bonded area contrary to STPI permission despite this lacuna Section 10A deduction was allowable? 3. In so far as the first substantial question of law is concerned, this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax and another Vs Tata Elxsi Ltd reported in (2012) 349 ITR 98 (Karn), has answered the said question of law in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Therefore, following the said judgment, the substantial question of law No.1 is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 4. However, he has submitted that the revenue has challenged the judgment of this Court in the Apex Court and is pending consideration. In th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r registration was filed on 23.10.1997 whereas, the permission was granted on 23.12.1997 after incorporation of the assessee on 03.09.1997. The assessee taken steps for registration by filing application and thereafter he has commenced production on 23.10.1997 and therefore, as it has fulfilled the requirement as mentioned in Sub Section (2)(i) of Section 10A, the assessee cannot be denied the benefit. Therefore, the substantial question of law No.2 is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not see any merit in these appeals. The appeal is dismissed subject to the observations, aforesaid. (Office to show the name of C P Ayappa, as counsel appearing for the respondent.) - - TaxT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
