TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 1718X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gly reiterates the grounds and argues that the CIT(A) has erred in deleting disallowance/addition u/s 10B of the Act amounting to ₹ 2,50,02,395/- made by the Assessing Officer vide assessment order dated 31.12.2010. Per Revenue, the CIT(A) ought to have upheld the impugned disallowance instead of deleting it. Accordingly, it prays for acceptance of the appeal. 3. The assessee supports the findings of the CIT(A) in deleting the impugned disallowance by placing on record copy of the order dated 25.2.2011 passed by the tribunal in its case for assessment year 2007-08 in I.T.A.No.1094/Mds/2010. It is the contention of the assessee that there is no distinction so far as the facts of the two assessment years are concerned and the CIT(A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have heard both parties and perused the case file. The order of the tribunal (supra) has also been gone through. We make it clear that the Revenue has not filed any paper book or drawn any distinction on facts of the case so far as the granite exported in the impugned assessment year as well as the previous assessment year is concerned. In these circumstances, we find that the co-ordinate bench in the previous assessment year 2007-08 had decided the very question against the Revenue as under: 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee-firm is engaged in the business of exporting granite and it claimed deduction u/s 10B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) on its profi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny kind and therefore, the assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 10B. He has also relied on the Tribunal order (supra). Now, the Revenue has raised Ground Nos. 2 to 4 in this regard by submitting that the Tribunal order in question has not become final and that the Department has not accepted the same and hence has preferred appeal before the Hon'ble High Court which is pending. It was not the case of the Revenue that the facts of assessment year 2005-06 are distinguishable from the facts of this year 2007-08. A copy of the Tribunal order dated 30.8.2009 has been placed before us for our perusal. 3. We have perused the Tribunal order and have considered the entire facts and evidence available before us. We are in agreement with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
