9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 851X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ese appeals read as under: "1. In the facts of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the additions made by the AO on account of disallowance of exemption claimed by assessee u/s 10B not appreciating the fact that for claiming exemption u/s 10A, the assessee has not fulfilled the mandatory requirement of filing the report of an accountant in prescribed Form No. 56F of I.T. Rules, 1962 along with the return of income. 2. In the facts of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the additions made by the AO on account of disallowance of exemption claimed by assessee u/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant. The case law relied upon by the assessing officer has also been considered. The issue was remanded to the assessing officer for considering the appellant's contentions. The assessing officer has reiterated that the assessee is not entitled for the claim and also that as per Rule 16D, a report in Form 56-F is required to be furnished alongwith the return of income to revise the claim u/s 10A. And the assessee has not furnished the said form no. 56-F with the return hence according to the assessing officer as per the decision in the case of Goetze India Ltd., the assessee is not entitled for revising the claim. In a rejoinder to the assessing officer's report the appellant has relied upon the case of Efextra Esolutions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. Para 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 revised return of income. Para 12. In "CIT VS. MAHAVIR SPINNING MILLS LTD." 303 ITR 353 (P&H), the issue was as to whether the Tribunal had correctly granted exemption u/s 10B of the Act, when no claim had b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 89 (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. Para 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 department contends that the claim u/s 10A did not exist in the original return and, therefore, it cannot be allowed. We, as per the foregoing discussion, do not subs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missions the ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below and further submitted that the present case is squarely covered in favour of the assessee vide order dated 24.08.2012 of the ITAT Delhi Bench 'E', New Delhi in the case of ITO Vs Efextra Esolutions Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi in ITA No. 313/Del/2012 for the assessment year 2007-08 and the order dated 25.07.2014 in ITA No. 1135/Del/2011 for the assessment year 2007-08 in the case of ITO, Ward-4(1), New Delhi Vs M/s JC Infosoft Technologies Ltd., New Delhi (copies of the said orders were furnished which are placed on record). 7. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on the record. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t had relied upon the certificate and other supporting materials issued by the STP in respect of the approval under section 10A and claimed that as long as these conditions were satisfied, the statutory mandate of section 10B too was also automatically satisfied. In the judgment of this Court, the assessee's claim for grant of benefit under section 10B had been turned down. It is urged by the assessee/applicant that upon remand after the judgment, the A.O is seeking to deny even the benefit of section 10A. We have carefully considered the records and submission. It appears that the assessee had claimed the benefit of section 10B on the basis of the provisions which pertains to section 10A. Therefore, A.O must in fairness consider the docume ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
