TMI Blog2008 (2) TMI 288X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the appellant. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by Rakesh Kumar Garg J.— The Revenue has filed the present appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against the order dated April 27, 2007, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench "B", Chandigarh, in I. T. A. No. 368/CHD/2002 in the case of the respondent-assessee for the assessment year 1998-99 raising the following substantial questions of law : (A) "Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in law in granting exemption under section 10B, when no claim was made by the assessee in the return of income or the revised return, which is in violation of the hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Goetze (India) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2, upheld the decision of the Assessing Officer on the issue of section 10B with the observation that the respondent has not fulfilled the conditions of section 10B(2) while filing its claim before the Assessing Officer. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) confirmed the sum of Rs. 1 lakh disallowed as bad debt with the view that the item is definitely capital in nature and cannot be allowed under section 36(1)(vii)/37(1) of the Act. 4. The assessee filed further appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The Tribunal vide order dated April 27, 2007, passed in I. T. A. No. 368/CHD/2002 decided the issue in favour of the respondent. It has observed that the respondent-company came into o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tence. Circular No. 1 of 2005 was issued on January 6, 2005 and as such the Tribunal was not justified in granting the benefit of the circular to the respondent. It has also argued by him that the Tribunal was not justified in allowing the deduction of Rs. 1 lakh as bad debt and the amount was capital in nature and had never formed a part of taxable income of the respondent. 7. The contention raised by the Revenue is without any merit. The assessee has claimed exemption under section 10B for the first time vide letter dated January 19, 2001. Admittedly, the impugned exemption was not claimed by the assessee in the original as well as revised return. This unit came into operation in the assessment year 1991-92 but during the financial ye ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
