TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 991X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee is entitled to the claim of deduction @ 100% of the profits and gains of the enterprises. We find that a mistake has occurred in the order of the Tribunal. In view thereof, we modify the findings of the Tribunal in para 62 and hold that the assessee is entitled to deduction @ 100% of the profits of the EOU unit. We allow the Miscellaneous Application moved by the assessee relating to assessment years 2006-07 and 2009-10 on the issue of claim of deduction under section 10B of the Act to be allowed at 100% of the profits of EOU unit. The remaining order passed by the Tribunal shall remain unchanged. - MA No.3/CHD/2014 In ITA No. No. 553/Chd/2011 , MA Nos.4 & 5/CHD/2014 In ITA No. Nos. 1210 & 1211/Chd/2012, MA No.6/CHD/2014 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... considering ratio of the said judgements. 3. The ld. AR for the applicant during the course of hearing pointed out that the respective Benches of the Tribunal had duly considered the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Liberty India Vs CIT (supra) and held that the applicant was entitled to exemption under section 10B of the Act in respect of the exports benefits. It was contended by the ld. AR for the assessee that non consideration of the said decisions constituted mistake apparent from record. 4. The ld. DR for the revenue pointed out that the Tribunal had considered the issue at length and even considered the scheme under which incentives were given by the Government of India to the assessee with the scheme as con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t and also to offset other disadvantage. The Tribunal further held that The said neutralization as in the case of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Liberty India Vs. CIT (supra) is linked to the FOB value of exports by way of Duty Credit Scrip. The said benefits are provided by DGFT in the case of the assessee and the said scheme being similar to the scheme of grant of Duty Drawback/DEPB and in turn applying the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India Vs. CIT (supra) we hold that the assessee is not entitled to the claim of deduction under section 10B of the Act on the said incentives. 6. In view of the said findings, we find no merit in the stand of the assessee that the Special Bench of Trib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 8 of 2002 dated 27.08.2002 reported in 258 ITR 13 (St) wherein it has been clearly clarified that the restriction in deduction to 90% was only for assessment year 2003-04 and for the other years the deduction had to be allowed @ 100%. It is thus, pointed out by the applicant that the above constitute a mistake apparent from record in the order dated 03.01.2014 passed by the Tribunal. 8. The ld. AR for the applicant drew our attention to the circular, copy of which is available on record. The ld. AR for the assessee took us through the CBDT circular issued in this regard and pointed out that the assessee was entitled to the claim of deduction @ 100% and not 90% for the captioned assessment years. 9. The ld. DR for the revenue pointed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... computer software. 12. The perusal of the said clarification issued by the CBDT clarifies that the restriction in deduction under section 10A and 10B to 90% of the profits and gains of the enterprises was for only one assessment year i.e. 2003-04. The assessee is in appeal before us relating to assessment years 2006-07 and 2009-10. Hence, the assessee is entitled to the claim of deduction @ 100% of the profits and gains of the enterprises. We find that a mistake has occurred in the order of the Tribunal. In view thereof, we modify the findings of the Tribunal in para 62 and hold that the assessee is entitled to deduction @ 100% of the profits of the EOU unit. The amended para 62 would read as under : 62. The issued vide ground of a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er passed by the Tribunal shall remain unchanged. 14. The assessee has further filed Miscellaneous Application No. 6/Chd/2014 against the order of the Tribunal dated 03.01.2014 in ITA No. 690/Chd/2011. It was pointed out by the ld. AR for the assessee that since the Tribunal had passed consolidated order and by an error, the said Miscellaneous Application was filed against the appeal of the revenue in ITA No. 690/Chd/2011 and the same is not maintainable. In view thereof, the said Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee is dismissed. 15. In the result, the Miscellaneous Application Nos. 3 6/Chd/2014 in ITA Nos. 553 and 690/Chd/2011 are dismissed and Miscellaneous Application Nos. 4 5/Chd/2014 in ITA Nos. 1210 1211/Chd/20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
