TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 1468X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndia Pvt. Ltd., that the appellant-assessee is entitled to the benefit of deduction u/s.10B of the Act, we find that the present appellant- assessee M/s.Metal Closures Pvt. Ltd., who is also similarly situated, since the fact of “Deemed Export” made by it through a third party is not in dispute, also deserves to get the same relief and therefore, the present appeals filed by assessee deserve to be allowed. - I.T.A.Nos.24-25/2015 C/W, I.T.A.Nos.22-23/2015, I.T.A.Nos.379-381/2016 - - - Dated:- 12-6-2018 - Dr. Vineet Kothari And Mrs. S. Sujatha, J.J. Mr. S. Parthasarathi, ADV.- For the Appellant Mr. K.V. Aravind, ADV.- For the Respondent JUDGMENT 1. Heard the learned counsels for the parties. 2. In view of our decision r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Deemed Export also and similarly following the said judgment, we have also taken a view in favour of the appellant-assessee M/s.International Stones India Pvt. Ltd., that the appellant-assessee is entitled to the benefit of deduction u/s.10B of the Act, we find that the present appellant- assessee M/s.Metal Closures Pvt. Ltd., who is also similarly situated, since the fact of Deemed Export made by it through a third party is not in dispute, also deserves to get the same relief and therefore, the present appeals filed by assessees deserve to be allowed. 6. The relevant portion of the judgment passed in I.T.A.No.564/2016 Connected matters (The Pr.Commissioner of Income-Tax, CIT(A) Anr. Vs. M/s. International Stones ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... restrict the deduction in the hands of the respondent-assessee by excluding the Deemed Exports , does not have any merit and the said contention deserves to be rejected and the same is accordingly rejected. 24. The appellant-Revenue before us was unable to establish that both the Respondents- assessees before us and the entity through whom such export was made by the assessee for the period in question, have claimed any double or repetitive benefit u/s.10B of the Act for the same transaction of export. 25. Therefore, we are clearly of the opinion that the issue raised in the present case by the Revenue is squarely covered by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in M/s.Tata Elxsi s case (supra) and we respectfully agre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
