TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 382X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the reason that necessary approval is not with the assessee - in favour of the assessee - ITA NOs. 5762 to 5765(Del)2010 - - - Dated:- 20-1-2012 - SHRI A.D. JAIN AND SHRI K.G. BANSAL, JJ. Appellant by: Shri H.L. Dihana, CIT, DR Respondent by: Shri D.N. Chaturvedi, Adv. Nupur Mangla, CA ORDER PER BENCH These are Department s appeals for assessment years: 2003-04 2004-05 and 2006-07 2007-08 against the action of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in allowing the claim of the assessee of exemption u/s 10B of the Income Tax Act, amounting to Rs. 1,59,44,776/- for assessment year 2003-04, Rs. 4,03,54,079/- for assessment year 2004-05, Rs. 1,61,27,322/- for assessment year 2006-07 and Rs. 1,61 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd. 4. Challenging the impugned orders, the ld. DR has contended that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing the claim of the assessee for exemption u/s 10B of the Act for all the years under consideration; that the ld. CIT(A) has failed to consider that allowing such claim is stark contravention of the statutory requirement as contained in section 2(iv) of Section 10 B of the Act; that it has not been considered that the said statutory provision stipulates a mandatory condition that a 100% Export Oriented Unit means one approved by the Board appointed in this regard u/s 14 of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 and the Rules made there-under; that the learned CIT(A) has erred in placing reliance on Instruction No.1/2006 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct, has placed reliance on our aforesaid order dated 23.4.2010, in the assessee s case for assessment year 2006-07. Therein, we have observed as follows:- 6. As per above order of the ld. CIT(A), we find that this issue has been decided by the ld. CIT(A) on the basis of Instruction No.1 dated 31.3.2006 issued by CBDT and Minutes of Industrial Ministerial Communication vide letter dated 23.3.2006 issued by the Ministry of Communication and Technology. Regarding the Tribunal decision in the case of Infotech Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (supra) it is observed by ld. CIT(A) that this decision has no application in the present case because that Tribunal decision was rendered prior to Instruction No. 1 dated 31.3.2006 issued by the CBDT. Before us, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion rendered in the case of Regency Creations Ltd. (supra) is directly applicable to the present case and respectfully following this Tribunal decision, we hold that the STPI registration granted to the assessee on 16.11.1998 is valid for allowing deduction to the assessee u/s 10B and hence we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue. We would also like to point out that in an earlier year, i.e., assessment year 2004-05, the AO himself has allowed deduction u/s 10B to the assessee in a scrutiny assessment. It is also not brought on record by the revenue that this order is revised u/s 263 or reopened u/s 147. Under these facts, we feel that having decided in assessment year 2004-05 that the assessee i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
