TMI Blog2011 (6) TMI 749X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion u/s 10A of the Act amounting to ₹ 1,18,05,695/-. The assessee company also furnished copy of registration issued by the Software Technology Parks of India (STPI) in support of the said exemption. The Assessing Officer rejected the claim u/s. 10A of the Act on the ground that approval from STPI is not a proper approval from specified authority. The Assessing Officer was of the opinion that only the Inter Ministerial Standing Committee is the body competent to grant approval to units of STPs for the purpose of deduction u/s. 10 of the IT Act. 4. Upon assessee s appeal Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) referred the Tribunal s decision in the case of DCIT v. Valiant Communication Ltd. [2010]-TIOL-452-ITAT-DEL) and observe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nodal agency for grant of approval for establishment of 100% export oriented software. As per the permission letter dated 7th November, 2006 as placed on the record, we found that STPI had granted registration to the assessee vide letter dated 5.12.2000 for setting up of a 100% EOU under Software Technology Park Scheme which was valid for 5 years. The assessee was granted extensions to continue the operations under Software Technology Park Scheme upto 31.3.2009. CBDT in its Circular No. 149/194/2004/TPL dated 6.1.2005 and Circular no. 200/20/2006/Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 31.3.2006 has directed to treat the grant of registration by STPI as valid agency for purposes of section 10B. Since the facts are identical in the present case, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7. Upon careful consideration, we find that the matter can be disposed of by hearing the Ld. Departmental Representative. 7.1 Ld. Departmental Representative in this connection could not controvert the finding of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that on identical issue as in this case the Tribunal has granted relief to the assessee in the case of cited above. She only relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer . 7.2 Upon careful consideration, we find that the issue involved is covered in favour of the assessee by the tribunal s decision cited above. Respectfully, following the precedent, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), hence, we confirm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quiring an asset. The expenditure was incurred to keep the services going on. The expenditure was incurred to keep pace with the technological development in this field. 10.1 Considering the above, Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) referred the decision in the case of C.I.T. vs. GE Capital Services Ltd. wherein the Hon ble High Court has observed as under:- 3. The only question that has arisen in this case pertaining to the assessment year 1997-98 is that expenditure incurred by the assessee on software was treated by the Assessing Officer as capital expenditure. The Tribunal was of the view that due to technological changes and the need to upgrade the software on a regular basis it cannot be said that the software was of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
