Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (11) TMI 121 - AT - Income TaxExemption u/s 10B - as per AO assessee did not have approval of prescribed authority as required by CBDT and the green card issued by Chairman Inter Ministerial Standing Committee (IMSC), as software technology park scheme, is merely a concession provided by the Government to the units set up on STP Zones to avail certain facilities on priority basis but does not have any bearing with the allowance and/or disallowance of deduction u/s 10B Held that:- The Assessing Officer has not disputed the activities of software development of the assessee. Certain additional evidences were filed before the ld. First Appellate Authority in the form of Circulars, notifications, letter with respect to delegation of power to the Director STPI/IMSC with respect to granting permission, which were forwarded for the comments of the AO under Rule 46A of the Rules. The Assessing Officer was of the view that green card is merely a concession, provided by the Government, to set up units in STP zones to avail certain facilities on priority basis and was of the view that for claiming deduction u/s 10B, the assessee is expected to obtain approval of CEO of STPI, as required in CBDT instructions dated 18/10/2010. The assessee filed further communication, pursuant to the report of the Assessing Officer. Again, remand report was sought from the Assessing Officer. Admittedly, there is no dispute with respect to fulfillment of other conditions as provided u/s 10B of the Act for claiming such deduction. The stand of the assessee is that automatic route is available to the units, which are having investment less than 100 millions as is the case of the assessee, therefore, the approval by the Director of STPI is sufficient to claim the deduction u/s 10B of the Act. Even, the green card is issued by the designated officer on behalf of the Secretary, Govt. Of India, Ministry of Information Technology and Chairman Inter Ministerial Standing Committee. It is also noted that for A.Y. 2008-09, the claim of the assessee, identically, was allowed and the claimed deduction amounting to ₹ 3,24,70,565/- was granted u/s 10B of the Act. This factual matrix was not controverted by the Revenue. In view of this factual position, unless and until, contrary facts are brought to our notice, the department is not expected to deny the claimed deduction. Our view is fortified by the decision of Western Outdoor Interacting Pvt. Ltd. (2012 (8) TMI 709 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) wherein held that the relief granted in the first Assessment year in which claim was made and accepted then the Income Tax Officer cannot withdraw the relief for subsequent years, more specifically, so, when the Revenue has not even suggested that there was any change in the facts warranting a different view for subsequent years. We find that there is no change in facts and identical facts are existing which were available for A.Y. 2008-09, therefore, it is not open to the department to deny claimed deduction. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|