TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 14X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... u/s.10B of the Act. The issue of allowability of claim u/s.10B of the Act is neither alive nor it is permissible, as it amounts to overruling the decision of the Tribunal, by CIT(Appeals). Thus, the ld. CIT(A) had seriously fell in error in directing the Assessing Officer to allow the claim for deduction of provision u/s.10B of the Act. Further, it is an admitted position that before making addition on account of Arm s Length Price adjustment u/s.92CA(3), there was be no profit available which can be claimed as deduction u/s.10B or 10A of the Act. The provisions of Sub Section (4) of Section 92CA of the Act specifically provides that addition made u/s.92CA(3) of the Act is not eligible profits for deduction neither u/s.10A nor u/s.10B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not eligible for claiming deduction u/s 10B since the green card issued by JDC, MEPZ-SEZ with effect from 23.03.20 10, produced as approval for 100% EOU was not applicable for the A.Y.2009-10. 3. For these and other grounds that may be adduced at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be set aside and that of the AO restored . 3. The brief facts of the case are as under: The Respondent- assessee namely M/s. Wayne Burt Petrochemical Pvt. Ltd, is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. It is engaged in the business of manufacturing and exporting of hydraulic cylinders and its components. The return of income for the AY 2009-10 was filed on 28.09.2009 disclosing loss of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6FF as per Rule 16DD was not filed. 5. Being aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who vide impugned order allowed the claim for deduction u/s.10B of the Act placing reliance on the decision of Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Heartland K.G. Information Ltd (2013) 359 ITR 0001. 6. Being aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us in the present appeal. The ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the ld. CIT(A) had seriously fell in error in applying the ratio decision of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Heartland K.G. Information Ltd (supra), to the facts of the present case, in as much as, the eligibility of deduction u/s.10B of the Act wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act is neither alive nor it is permissible, as it amounts to overruling the decision of the Tribunal, by CIT(Appeals). Thus, the ld. CIT(A) had seriously fell in error in directing the Assessing Officer to allow the claim for deduction of provision u/s.10B of the Act. Further, it is an admitted position that before making addition on account of Arm s Length Price adjustment u/s.92CA(3), there was be no profit available which can be claimed as deduction u/s.10B or 10A of the Act. The provisions of Sub Section (4) of Section 92CA of the Act specifically provides that addition made u/s.92CA(3) of the Act is not eligible profits for deduction neither u/s.10A nor u/s.10B of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) in the flagrant ignorance of the plain provisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
