TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (6) TMI 165
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d ground and directors are doing work of both SEZ and domestic unit of the company." 2. The ld. Assessing Officer observed that the assessee is engaged in business of trading and manufacturing of Precious and Semi Precious stones, diamond and studded gold jewellery. The return of A.Y. 2009-10 was filed by the assessee on 30/09/2009 and subsequently revised it on 29/03/2011 declaring total income of Rs. 3,44,19,940/-. The case was scrutinized U/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as the Act). During the year under consideration, the assessee claimed deduction U/s 10AA of the Act with respect to Surat Unit. The assessee is actually running three units (i) Surat (ii) Mumbai and (iii) head office at Jaipur where no manufacturing set up is made. The Assessing Officer gave reasonable opportunity of being heard on Surat Unit that claim of deduction U/s 10AA of the Act is as per law or not. The assessee filed explanation vide letter dated 17/10/2011, which has been reproduced by the Assessing Officer on page Nos. 2 to 7 of the assessment order. The assessee filed another letter on 01/11/2011, which has also been reproduced by the Assessing Officer on page Nos. 7 and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... submissions of the AR. alongwith the assessment order in the case of the assessee for A.Y. 2008-09. For A.Y. 2008-09, the matter was decided on same facts by ITAT, Jaipur Bench in the case of the appellant. After a detailed discussion it was observed that as per section 51 of the SEZ Act it is mentioned that notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act, the provisions of SEZ Act will prevail. The Hon'ble ITAT, jaipur Bench further observed that the implication of section 51 of the SEZ Act was that anything inconsistent to the provisions of the SEZ Act will not be considered. Thus, the word 'services' as mentioned in section 10AA could not be construed inconsistently with the definition of then'services', given in the SEZ Act. Since, under the SEZ Act, trading is included in the term 'services' trading that is export of imported goods was held to be services and the assessee was allowed the deduction u/s 10AA of the I.T. Act. The A.O. in her order in A.Y. 2009-10 has given the same facts and arguments as discussed in the orde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....prayed to confirm the order of the ld CIT(A). 5. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. The Coordinate Bench in ITA No. 509/JP/2011 for A.Y. 2008-09 in assessee's own case had allowed the appeal by observing as under:- "2.18 The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. M/s. Mahabir Vegetable Oils (P) Ltd. - 2011-TIOL-24-SC-CT had an occasion to consider the applicability of promissory estoppel on public authorities. In the case before Hon'ble Apex Court, the state of Haryana in Industrial Policy for the period 01-04-1988 to 31-03- 1997 promised to give incentive by way of sales tax exemption for the industries set up in backward areas of the State. Schedule III appended to the Rules provides for a negative list of the industries and at the initial stage the solvent extract plant was admittedly not included in the negative list. On 16th Dec. 1996, amendment to the draft rules were notified and according to which sales tax benefit was to be given to the investment made upto 3rd Jan. 1996 and solvent extraction plant was also placed in negative list. The Hon'ble Apex Court after considering ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....instruction was not withdrawn or the Board has issued instruction that instruction dated 24-05- 206 from the Ministry of Commerce will not be applicable for the purpose of allowing exemption u/s 10AA of the Act. Hence, in view of the doctrine of promissory estoppel, we hold that the assessee is entitled to deduction. 2.20 We have also reproduced Section 51 of the SEZ Act. As per this Section, it is mentioned that notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act, the provision of SEZ Act will prevail. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Tax Recovery Officer, Vs. Custodian Appointed under the Special Court, 293 ITR 369 had an occasion to consider the meaning of language employed in Section 13 of the Special Court Act. In Section 13 of the Special Court Act, it was stated that provision of the Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that there can be no manner of doubt that the provision of Special Court Act wherever they are applicab....