TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (9) TMI 515
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... provision of section 10A/10B of the Act to grant registration. 3. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding the order of the AO disallowing the deduction claimed by the appellant u/s 10A/10B of the Act, allowing that the appellant has made a fresh claim of deduction for the first time, not by way of revised return. 4. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that the AO was bound to assess the correct taxable income, allowing deduction as claimed by the Appellant u/s 10A/ 10B of the Act as the same was not a fresh claim as alleged in the assessment order. 5. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in holding that the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (I) Ltd. 284 ITR 323 was applicable to appellant‟s case and further erred in holding that it curtailed the powers of the CIT(A) to entertain additional ground(S) of appeal in respect of claims not made by way of revised return. 3. Apropos eligibility to claim deduction u/s 10B of the Act. 4. Brief facts of the case as stated by the ld CIT(A)'s in his order is that:- 1. The appellant is a 100% EOU registered under STPI. It claimed deduction u/s 10B of the IT Act on the b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Appellant furnished its return of income on October 31, 2007, and claimed tax holiday under section 10B of the Act. The Appellant had duly submitted the report issued by the Chartered Accountant in Form 56G in respect of exemption claimed under section 10B of the Act. iii. The original assessment proceedings were completed vide assessment order dated June 2, 2009 passed by Assessing Officer under section 143(3) of the Act, accepting the claim of the Appellant. iv. The Commissioner of Income-tax (CIT) initiated revisionary proceedings on the ground that deduction under section 10B of the Act, is not allowable in view of the decision of the Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Infotech Enterprises Ltd vs JCIT 85 ITD 325 (Hyd) on the ground that deduction cannot be allowed on the basis of registration with STPI, since STPI is not the Board referred to in Clause (iv) of Explanation 2 below section 10B (8) of the Act. As a result, the original assessment order was set aside by CIT vide order dated July 7, 2010 under section 263 of the Act directing the AO to make fresh assessment after considering the claim for deduction afresh. v. In the de novo proceedings, the AO was sat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntant in the prescribed Form No.56F before the Assessing officer. 9. We find that the alternate claim of the assessee u/s 10A was denied by the ld CIT(A) relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Goetze India Ltd which was considered by the Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders P. Ltd. (Bombay) 349 ITR 336 in which it was held as under:- "22. It was then submitted by Mr. Gupta that the Supreme Court had taken a different view in Goetze (India) Limited v. Commissioner of Income-tax, (2006) 157 Taxman 1. We are unable to agree. The decision was rendered by a Bench of two learned Judges and expressly refers to the judgment of the Bench of three learned Judges in National Thermal Power Company Limited vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (supra). The question before the Court was whether the appellant-assessee could make a claim for deduction, other than by filing a revised return. After the return was filed, the appellant sought to claim a deduction by way of a letter before the Assessing Officer. The claim, therefore, was not before the appellate authorities. The deduction was disallowed by the Assessing Officer on the ground that there was no provis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... claim not filed before the Assessing Officer. 12. In "Deepak Nitrite Ltd. vs. CIT", 307 ITR 289 (Guj), in the original return deduction was claimed u/s 32A of the Act, whereas in the belated revised return, such claim was rectified and made u/s 32AB, which claim was accepted. 13. In "CIT vs. Lucknow Public Educational Society", 318 ITR 223 (All), the original return had been filed late, due to which, the revised return was treated by the Assessing Officer as nonest, it was held that a claim to which the assessee is legally entitled cannot be denied by the Assessing Officer on technical grounds, even if such a claim has not been made by the assessee. 14. In the recent decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ITO vs Accentia Technologies Ltd bearing ITA No 1871/Mum/2011, the Tribunal held as under: "6.4 A reading of the remand report of the Assessing Officer also makes it very clear that the denial to the deduction has been advocated on account of a technical error made by the appellant. If it wasn't for this technical error the appellant was very much eligible to claim the said deduction. In view of the above details I find that the action of the Assessin....