TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 255X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missioner of Income Tax, on an erroneous reading of the facts on the record, has come to the conclusion that the assessee is a Unit under the SEZ and not a 100% Export Oriented Undertaking and has, accordingly, come to the conclusion that since the assessee's unit is not located within a defined SEZ it is not entitled to the benefit of deduction under section 10B of the Act. Evidently therefore, the conclusion arrived at by the Commissioner of Income Tax is based upon an erroneous finding of fact. The Tribunal, therefore, did not commit any error in holding that the assessee was a 100% Export Oriented Undertaking and not an SEZ Unit and therefore, entitled to deduction under section 10B of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee - Tax App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment was erroneous and caused prejudice to the interest of the revenue since the Development Commissioner, Kandla Special Economic Zone had granted it approval under the EOU Scheme by permission letter dated 02.02.2007 as a 100% Export Oriented Unit and not an Undertaking as provided by the Board. He, accordingly, was of the view that the approval permitted to an SEZ (Special Economic Zone) Unit did not carry the same meaning as an Undertaking envisaged under section 10B of the Act. He, therefore, issued a notice dated 04.02.2014 under section 263 of the Act seeking to reverse the assessment made by the Assessing Officer. 3. In response to the notice, the assessee filed its reply dated 05.09.2014 claiming that it was deriving inco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the appellant, assailed the impugned order by placing reliance upon the findings recorded by the Commissioner of Income Tax and submitted that the assessee not having satisfied the requirements for availing the benefit under section 10B of the Act, the Commissioner of Income-tax had rightly set aside the assessment order. It was submitted that the Tribunal has erred in holding that the respondent assessee had established a 100% Export Oriented Undertaking which was eligible for exemption under section 10B of the Act and was not a SEZ Unit. It was submitted that there is no proof to show that the approval given by the Development Commissioner was ratified by the Board of Approval and, therefore also, the Tribunal has erred in interfering ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Development Commissioner, exercising powers of the Board of Approval, gives his assent to an Undertaking, the same is valid for claiming deduction under section 10B of the Act and accordingly, held that the assessee had established a new 100% Export Oriented Undertaking under section 10B of the Act and not an SEZ Unit as perceived by the Commissioner of Income Tax and reversed the order passed under section 263 of the Act. 7. From the findings recorded by the Commissioner of Income Tax, it is apparent that he has revised the assessment order on the ground that the assessee is not a 100% Export Oriented Undertaking, but an Export Oriented Unit and does not have the approval of the Board of Approval. However, upon the assessee bringing i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
