TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (5) TMI 524
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ings as invalid simply on the ground that re-assessment proceedings was initiated after the expiry of four years from the end of the assessment year. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the original assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was completed on 21.03.2006. Subsequently the assessment was reopened u/s 147 of the Act by issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act on 07.04.2008 on the ground that deduction of Rs.22,92,254/- u/s 80IB of the Act availed by the assessee was not allowable as per the provisions of the I.T.Act, 1961. 3.1. The assessee challenged the reopening of assessment before the ld. CIT(A) as bad in law on the ground that the assessment year in question was A.yr. 2003-04 and the notice u/s 148 was issued on 07.05.2008 whic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er the AO issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on 07.04.2008 to reopen the assessment on the following reasons as stated by the ld. CIT(A) in its order. :- "Deduction of Rs.22,92,254/- u/s 80IB was availed by the assessee which is not allowable as per the provisions of the IT Act, 1961. Since deduction u/s 80IB is admissible only if the accounts of the undertaking have been audited by a Chartered Accountant and the audit report in the form 10CCB is duly signed and verified by such an accountant is furnished along with return of income, but the audit report in form 10CCB was not furnished by the assessee along with the return. Moreover the deduction was not allowed by the accountant in Form 3CD annexed to the Audit Report u/s 44AB. Hence the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....interest in company cannot be said that there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. Accordingly the reassessment proceedings was quashed. In the present case also deduction u/s 80IB of the Act for Rs.22,92,254/- was allowed to the assessee in assessment made u/s 143(3) of the Act on 21.03.2006 after scrutiny of the claim of the assessee. The reopening thereafter was made on the very same set of facts. Therefore the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court squarely applies to the present case of the assessee. therefore we do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT(A) which is confirmed. This ground of appeal of the appeal is dismissed. 7. In the A.Yr. 2005-06 the issue involved i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 18. 11. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the orders of the authorities below and materials available on record. The undisputed facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of trading and manufacturing of the garments. During the year under consideration the assessee claimed deduction u/s 10A of the Act of Rs.59,09,552/-. The AO disallowed the claim of deduction to the assessee observing that the assessee has not produced the evidences for purchase of needles, threads, blue stickers and ironing etc. and therefore the assessee was not doing manufacturing but trading of goods. On appeal the ld. CIT(A) allowed the claim of deduction to the assessee by following the order of the Kolkata Bench of the T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t may have been finished goods in the hands of the supplier, was in fact, raw material or semi-finished goods for the assessee. Further, one must take into account the basic purpose of granting exemption u/s 10A. To my mind, the basic purpose is to encourage exports so that foreign exchange is earned. As already mentioned the goods were exported and the proceeds were brought into the country in convertible foreign exchange. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the assessee fulfilled the conditions of section 10A and qualifies for exemption. I, therefore, direct that exemption is to be granted and the appeal is allowed." In further appeal by the Department the ITAT observed as follows:- "We have given our careful consideration to the r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he SEZ area. However, the AO took note of eh submissions of the assessee that it was buying readymade garments and was adding labels or ironing and packing of the same before export. The assessee has also pointed out that processing charges amounting to Rs.1,37,657/- have been expend by it on the goods and there were stores and spares of the value of Rs.49,804/- available with it at the end of the year. The AO has not controverted the submissions of the assessee that it was buying readymade garments and then affixing labels or was ironing and packing the products before export. The process of affixing labels and ironing and packing of the garments does tantamount to manufacture/production in the .light of the decision of Hon'ble Kolkata ITA....