9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 895X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upreme Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT (2006) 157 Taxman 1 (SC) would not apply to the instant case. 2. On the facts & in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT (A) has erred in holding that the alternate claim of the assessee, for grant of deduction u/s 10A instead of u/s 10B of the Act, is tenable specifically in the light of the fact that alternate claim was not made through a Revised Return of Income. 3. Ld. CIT (A) ought not to have allowed relief to the assessee on the basis that Form No.56F, for claiming deduction u/s 10A of the Act, was filed during assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elapsed and the assessee had merely made a revised claim on the basis of a letter and accompanying report u/s 56F. In view of the Apex Court's decision in "Goetze India Ltd.", 284 ITR 323 (SC), the Assessing Officer held that the deduction could not be made without a valid revised return. He, accordingly, refused to consider the deduction claimed u/s 10A vide letter dated 10.11.09 and summarily rejected the claim. 4. By virtue of the impugned order, the Ld. CIT (A) directed the Assessing Officer to consider the Report in Form No.56F and the resultant claim of deduction of ` 19,84,913/- u/s 10A of the IT Act and to allow the same, if found to be in accordance with law. 5. Aggrieved, the department is in appeal. 6. Challenging the impugned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT", (2006) 157 Taxman 1 (SC) would not apply. 7. It was further contended that the case laws relied on by the ld. CIT (A) are not applicable, since they are regarding filing of tax audit report; and that the Ld. CIT (A) has also gone wrong in saying that no fresh claim was made by the assessee. 8. The ld. counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, has contended that as per the return filed, the assessee had claimed deduction u/s 10B of the Act; that subsequently, in the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer pointed out that the assessee was eligible for deduction u/s 10A of the Act and not u/s 10B; that it was therefore, that the assessee filed the revised report in Form 56F with the Assessing Officer; that thereby, no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claim to one u/s 10A of the Act, by way of filing a report in Form No.56F before the Assessing Officer. "Goetze (India)" (supra), to our mind, is not attracted to the facts of the present case, since therein, the claim made subsequently was an altogether fresh claim, whereby the returned income got changed. It is not so here. Undisputedly, in the present case, on the change of the claim, neither the returned income, nor the assessed income of the assessee has undergone any change whatsoever. 11. In "CIT vs. Ramco International", 332 ITR 306 (P&H), it was held that since the assessee had not made any fresh claim and had duly furnished the documents and had submitted form for claim u/s 80IB of the Act, there was no requirement of filing any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as not entitled to such claim. Subsequently, the assessee made that very claim before the appellate authority, which was accepted. 16. In "Deepak Nitrite Ltd. vs. CIT", 307 ITR 289 (Guj), in the original return deduction was claimed u/s 32A of the Act, whereas in the belated revised return, such claim was rectified and made u/s 32AB, which claim was accepted. 17. The afore-discussed case laws relied on by the assessee all go to support the assessee's case. Concurring therewith, we hold that the Ld. CIT (A) has correctly held the claim of the assessee to be allowable, if found to be in accordance with law. Moreover, the assessee's eligibility for the claim u/s 10A rather than u/s 10B of the Act nowhere stands disputed. It is only that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
