TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (5) TMI 773
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ding the disallowance of deduction of Rs.43,12,008 claimed by the appellant u/s. 10AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in respect of its Unit in Surat Special Economic Zone. He ought to have appreciated, inter alia,: (a) that the appellant's claim was in respect of profits and gains derived from (i) export of gold medallions manufactured by its aforesaid SEZ Unit (from gold bullion directly imported by it or imported gold bullion purchased by it from MMTC) and (ii) from export of cut and polished diamonds imported by it; (b) that the learned Assessing Officer's conclusion that the appellant had not manufactured gold medallions had been arrived at after ignoring positive evidence and on the basis of suspicions and surmises arising in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....quired that the expression 'trading' shall mean import for the purposes of re-export; that, therefore, the profits and gains derived by the Unit from the export of imported cut and polished diamonds were clearly eligible to the deduction u/s. 10AA; (f) that, for the above reason (that trading was covered by 'services' envisaged by Section 10AA), even if it were assumed for the sake of argument only that the appellant's Unit had not manufactured medallions but exported gold as alleged by the learned Assessing Officer, the profits from such export would nevertheless qualify for deduction u/s. 10AA. 1.2 Without prejudice to the foregoing, in law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, it was not op....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d been arrived at at Rs. 1,53,71,366 (even as that assumption was not at all warranted in view of the Instructions of the Ministry of Commerce to which his particular attention was drawn); (b) ignoring such categorical instructions issued by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry as under to which his specific attention had been drawn and which had even been reproduced at page 13 of the impugned Appellate Order: (A) Instruction No. 1/2006 dated 24.3.2006: "2. As decided in the meeting, you may kindly note that trading for the purposes of Rule 76 of the SEZ rules would be confined to import of goods for exports. Accordingly, in the case of proposals for setting up of trading units, the Approval Committee may consider incorporating a provis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ances of the appellant's case, the learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in in upholding the learned Assessing Officer's action of rejecting the revision in the quantum of the appellant's claim for deduction u/s. 10- AAfrom Rs.43,12,008 as per its return to Rs. 1,89,05,825, on the ground that it had been made by means of a letter addressed during the assessment proceedings and not by filing a revised return as required by the decision of the Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT (284 ITR 323). The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated, inter alia,: (a) that the appellant's return for the present assessment year had been duly filed on 29-09-2009; (b) that it was because the Finance Act, 2010 inserted a Proviso to sub-se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....umventing the provision for limitation contained in sub-section (5) of Section 139 for filing a revised return (which is why the learned Assessing Officer I had rejected the appellant's claim relying on the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT (284 ITR 323); that for this reason, the appellant's case was clearly distinguishable from that before the Supreme Court in its aforesaid decision; (e) that, in any case, the decision of the Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT (284 ITR 323) itself categorically notes that the issue decided by it was limited to the power of the assessing authority and did not impinge on the power of the Appellate Tribunal u/s. 254; that, as has been held by the jurisdic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....und on revision of the amount of the claim, on the ground that he had already upheld the disallowance of the claim itself. 3. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, the learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in dismissing Ground No. 3 of the appetent's appeal challenging levy of interest u/s. 234A, 234B and 234C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on the ground that the same was only consequential in nature. He ought to have appreciated, inter alia, that the appellant had challenged the very levy of interest under those provisions and, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of its case, even if the disallowance of deduction came to be ultimately sustained, the ratio of the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Bharat....