9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (6) TMI 803X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce made u/s. 10B since the assessee failed to produce the "Ratification" by the Development Commissioner as envisaged in instruction dated 9.3.2009. 4. The CIT(A) erred in applying the decision in the case of Smt. K. Sudha Rani vs. ITO in ITA No. 1750/ Hyd/2008 when the facts of the assessee's case do not squarely fit in the facts of the above cases. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of development of Computer software and export thereof outside India. During the year it was into the business of consultancy, project development, professional services and accounting work done as per agreement with M/s. Supreme Soft Inc., USA. During the year it had claimed deduction of Rs. 43,22,403/ - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y section 14 of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 (65 of 1957) and the rules made under that Act. According to the DR, the assessee is not duly approved by the competent authority to grant deduction u/s. 10B of the Act. As the assessee has not furnished necessary approval of the Board as required under the Act, the deduction u/s. 10B cannot be granted. 7. On the other hand, the learned AR relied on the order of the Tribunal in the case of VSN Makro Technologies Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 1057/Hyd/2010 for assessment year 2007-08 dated 13th January, 2011 wherein at para 10 it was held as follows: "10. We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The contention of the assessee's counsel is that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clear that our observations herein above shall not have any bearing on the decision of the assessing officer with regard to the merits of the claim of the assessee for deduction u/s 10A of the Act. We direct accordingly." 8. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. We have carefully gone through the orders of the lower authorities. In our opinion, the CIT(A) has erred in granting deduction u/s. 10B without due approval from the competent authority. Accordingly, in view of the order of the Tribunal cited above, we remit back the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer in similar lines to examine the issue in the light of the above. 9. In the result, Revenue appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
