TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 950X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n for not considering the alleged amount while computing deduction under section 10A of the Act was that, such amount was received belatedly beyond the period of six (6) months mentioned in the statute, and application for extension of time for receiving such foreign remittances have been filed with the authorized bankers and the applications were not been rejected. The facts of the case in hand is similar to the aforesaid case of Wipro Ltd.[ 2015 (10) TMI 826 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ] - Thus following it we hold that notwithstanding the fact that there is no express order granting approval by the authorized bankers extending the time limit of six (6) months for receipt of foreign remittances on account of export sales, the assessee is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tions of Ld.A.R that incorrect appreciation of facts and consideration of facts relating to a Y 2009-10 for deciding the issue in a Y 2008-09 has resulted in a mistake apparent from record in respect of this issue in a Y 2008-09. 13. Identical type of mistake has been pointed out by assessee in a Y 2009- 10 also. The Ld.A.R submitted that the tribunal has decided an identical issue in AY 2009-10 by following the decision rendered in AY 2008-09. He submitted that it is not the case of assessee or tax authorities that assessee did not realise at all the export proceeds. What was pointed out by the AO was that the export proceeds were not realised within the time prescribed in section 10 A of the Act. Accordingly, following our decision r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w in upholding the order of the Assessing Officer disallowing deduction of ₹ 17,28,83,855/- u/s 10A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 1.1 On facts and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the order of the Assessing Officer reducing ₹ 26,05,82,985/- from export sales oil ground of non-realization for the purposes of computing deduction u/s 10A. 1.2 That the CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that the Appellant had already filed applications for extension of time for realizing export sales of ₹ 20,23,79,275. 1.3 That the CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that export proceeds of ₹ 5,82,03,710/- were duly received by the Appellant and it was permitted to receive the same by RBI/ Authorized Dealer which sho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that, this amount was excluded from the export turnover only on the ground that they were not received within the time limit specified under the Act. At the outset, he submitted that, admittedly there is no dispute that the amounts were not realised. The issue was only that the amounts were received after the due date specified under the Act, and the assessee has submitted application for extension of time before expiring of six months. The Ld.AR placed reliance on the decision of Hon ble Karnataka High Court in case of Wipro Ltd. vs DCIT reported in (2016) 382 ITR 179. He also placed reliance on the decision of coordinate bench in assessee s own case for assessment year 2010-11 and 2011-12 passed in ITA No.1447-1448/B/2017 by order dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riod of 6 months, foreign exchange remittances are received and credited to the assessee's account through the Reserve Bank of India. It is in this context mer1y because the written approval of extension is not passed by the Reserve Bank of India, whether the assessee couid be denied the benefit of Section 10A. The Tribunal on consideration of the entire material on record, taking note of the statutory provisions and the object underlying this provision, has come to the conclusion that notwithstanding the fact there is no express order granting approval by the Reserve Bank of India, as it has not been rejected and foreign exchange is received and remitted through the proper channel, the assesse is entitled to the benefit of Section 10A. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be considered for the purposes of claiming deduction under section 10 A of the Act. In the present facts of the case, we note that, there is no dispute whatsoever regarding receipt of the sale proceeds in convertible foreign exchange were received by assessee, though belatedly. The only reason for not considering the alleged amount while computing deduction under section 10A of the Act was that, such amount was received belatedly beyond the period of six (6) months mentioned in the statute, and application for extension of time for receiving such foreign remittances have been filed with the authorized bankers and the applications were not been rejected. 3.4 The facts of the case in hand is similar to the aforesaid case of Wipro Ltd., (s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
