TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 1132X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sistant Development Commissioner of MEPZ, SEZ, wherein they have clarified that medallions are also pendants. This was also taken note of by the learned Writ Court and quashed the order of penalty imposed by the Development Commissioner under the provisions of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulations) Act 1992. Thus, the basis or the substratum, based on which the assessment was completed denying the benefit to the assessee, did not no longer survive. What is required to be seen for extending the benefit under Section of the 10AA Act is, to see whether the assessee is an entrepreneur as referred to, defined under Section 2(j) of the Special Economic Zone Act. No doubt, the assessee falls within the said definition, as they had been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... VAGNANAM , J. ] These appeals filed by the Revenue, under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for brevity) are directed against the orders, dated 19.02.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'C' Bench, ('the Tribunal' for brevity), in I.T.A.No.2311/Mds/2015 and ITA.No.2312/Mds/2015, for the assessment year 2011-12 2012-13. 2. These appeals are entertained on the following substantial questions of Law: (i) Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 80 IA of the Income Tax Act? (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2(j) enterpreneur means a person who has been granted a letter of approval by the Development Commissioner under sub-section 9 of Section 15. Undisputed fact is that the assessee was granted a Letter of Approval and therefore, assessee would fall within the definition of an entrepreneur as defined under Section 2(j) of Special Economic Zones Act, 2005. The Assessing Officer sought to deny the benefit on the ground that the assessee has violated the terms and conditions in the Letter of Approval, which was granted by the Development Commissioner, for manufacture of bangles and pendants. The basis for arriving at such a conclusion is on the ground that the Development Commissioner initiated proceedings under the provisions of the Fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of Approval by manufacturing medallions instead of pendants, and exporting the same. At that relevant time, the writ petition filed by the assessee in W.P.No.13538 of 2015, challenging the order of penalty, appears to have been pending. Aggrieved by the dismissal order dated 16.12.2015, the assessee had preferred appeals in ITA.Nos.2311/Mds/2015 2312/Mds/2015, before the Tribunal. The assessee was successful in convincing the Tribunal to hold that there is no violation of the Letter of Approval and there is no marked difference or distinction between a pendant and a medallion. The writ petition which was pending before this Court came to be allowed vide order 13.02.2017. 7. It is the submission of Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar, learned Senior ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to what would be the date of commencement of production, would be the Development Commissioner and not the Income Tax Officer. Even in the order dated 03.9.2014, imposing penalty on the assessee, which was subsequently quashed, the Development Commissioner has recorded that the date of commencement of production as 14.04.2009. This date is binding on the Income Tax Department, as the competent authority to certify the date of production is the Development Commissioner and not the Assessing Officer. 9. It was pointed by Mr.R.Sivaraman, leaned counsel appearing for the assessee/respondent that the assessee has fullfiled the terms and conditions of the Letter of Approval and the nett foreign exchange earning of the assessee for the years ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
