TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (12) TMI 1022
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Id. CIT has erred in passing the order u/s. 263 of the Act which is bad in law and without jurisdiction. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT has erred in holding the assessment order to be erroneous and also prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. 3(a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT has erred in holding that the Assessing Officer has allowed the claim of the appellant for deduction u/s.10AA without carrying proper enquiry. 3(b) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT has erred in holding that the Assessing officer has allowed the claim of the appellant without examining whether appellant ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the word "service " neither for the purposes of entire Income Tax Act nor for the restricted purpose of allowing relief under section I0AA ,is not defined in the Income tax Act 1961 or in section IOAA and hence the AO has interpreted the word "service" as per the meaning attributable to it as per common parlance and has correctly disallowed the relief. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified, in allowing the appeal of the assessee, as the Ld CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the intention of the Legislature The deduction u/s IOAA is allowable for two activities in SEZ, being manufacturing and providing of service which includes trading of the nature of import for the purpo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng in the deduction under section 10AA, in the Income tax Act 1961 5. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified, in allowing the appeal of the assessee , as the Ld CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the relied on decision of the ITAT Jaipur Bench in the case of DCIT Vs Goenka Diamonds and Jewellers Ltd (ITA No-509/JP/2011 dated 31.01.2012, is not accepted by the department and appeal u/s 260A has been authorised by the CC1T Jaipur and also in the case of M/s.Gitanjali Exports Corp. Ltd. (ITA No.6947 & 6948/Mum/2011). is not accepted by the department and appeal u/s.260A has been authorised by the CIT Cent.-I, Mumbai. 6. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in this order. Therefore, we are not repeating the contents of that circular issued by the Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Government of India). Under Section 51(1) of the SEZ Act, it has been clearly provided that the provision of this Act has overriding effect in case of contradiction between the SEZ Act and other Act. Hence, by virtue of Section 51 of the SEZ Act, the provision of SEZ Act and rules will have overriding effect over the provision contained in any other Act. Learned CIT(A) has taken into consideration this circular issued by Government of India and the provision of Section 51 of the SEZ Act and found that trading done by the assessee is a service and, therefore, deduction under Section 10AA is allowable. We further noted ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n plank of argument of learned DR is that rules provided under the SEZ Act cannot partake the character of the Section of the Income Tax Act. We find that in the SEZ Act under Section 51, it has been clearly provided that the provision of SEZ Act will override the provision of any other Act, meaning thereby the provision provided under the SEZ Act has to override on the provision of Section 10AA of the Income Tax Act. Under the rules, it is not provided but under Section 51 of the SEZ Act, it is provided, therefore, in our view, the contention raised by the learned DR is not tenable. Moreover, the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the coordinate Bench in the case of Goenka Diamonds and Jewellery Limited (supra). Therefore, respec....