TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1156X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ranting benefit of section 10B of the Income Tax Act.1961. The facts of the case in above decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court apply squarely in this case. Accordingly, the assessee, not being approved by the Board appointed by the Central Government in exercise of powers conferred u/s 14 of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, is not eligible for exemption u/s 10B of the I.T.Act. Alternative claim of deduction u/s 10A - Assessee had made a claim by furnishing a certificate in Form No.56F before the assessment order was finalized - HELD THAT:- To claim deduction u/s 10A the assessee is required to file audit report in Form No.56F. Even if the certificate as required u/s 10A was not filed along with the return of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessment proceedings, the assessee had filed certificate in Form No.56F to claim deduction u/s 10A of the I.T.Act vide letter dated 04.11.2013. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the I.T.Act vide order dated 10.01.2014. The assessee s claim of deduction u/s 10B of the I.T.Act was denied by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer held that the assessee was not eligible to the claim on the ground that it is not a 100% EOU as defined in section 10B of the I.T.Act, since approval under the STPI scheme cannot be considered sufficient for granting the benefits of section 10B of the I.T.Act. The Assessing Officer, in taking the above view, relied on the judgment of the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndustries (Development Regulation) Act, 1951 is sufficient to grant deduction u/s.10B of the Act. 4. The decision of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in this regard is in misapprehension of the Explanation to section 10B of the Act, which clearly laid down the approval by the Board appointed in this behalf by the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by section 14 of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 (65 of 1951) and the rules made under that Act. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) while allowing the assessee's claim u/s.10B failed to appreciate that the functions delegated to IMSC did not include approval of STPI for claim u/s.10B of the Income Tax Act 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 (65 of 1951), and the rules made under that Act . The Assessee's claim for exemption u/s.lOB of the Act was on the basis of approval as 100% EOU under STPI scheme. As per the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the cases CIT v. Regency Creations Ltd. and CIT v. Valiant Communications Ltd. [(2013) 353 ITR 326 (Del)] , approval under STPI scheme cannot be equated to approval as hundred per cent export-oriented undertaking by the Board appointed in this behalf by the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by section 14 of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 (65 of 1951), and the Rules made under that Act. The relevant portion of the judgment of the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n under Section 10B of the Act on the ground of its being 100 per cent EOU. In the present case, there is no notification or official document suggesting that either the Inter Ministerial Committee, or any other officer or agency was nominated to perform the duties of the Board (constituted under Section 14 of the IDR Act), for purposes of approvals under Section 10-B. Though the considerations which apply for granting approval under Sections 10-A and 10-B may to all extent, overlap, yet the deliberate segregation of these two benefits by the statute reflects Parliamentary intention that to qualify for benefit under either, the specific procedure enacted for that purpose has to be followed. There is nothing in any of the Circulars ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e I.T.Act. In the following judicial pronouncements, it has been held that the claim of deduction on similar circumstances should be allowed by the Assessing Officer:- (i) In the case of ITO vs Device Driven (India)(P) Limited in a case where claim under l0B was denied the Hon. Cochin Bench of the Tribunal restored the matter of deduction u/s lOA of the Act before the AO with the direction to examine the claim for deduction u/s lOA of the Act and take appropriate decision in accordance with the law, after affording necessary opportunity of being heard. (ii) In the case of Cronos Consulting India (P) Ltd. vs ACIT [(2014) 49 taxmann.com 432], the Cochin Tribunal held that the alternative claim made by the assessee claiming deduction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
