TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (9) TMI 1067
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....A of the Income Tax Act [Act]. The 10A deduction was claimed on the ground that it was a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU) and was registered with Software Technology Parks of India, Hyderabad (STPI). During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) examined the eligibility of the company for the purpose of 10A deduction and it was found that STPI had given approval to assessee through its letter dt. 29-08-2003. As per the approval letter, the company should commence its production within the period of three years and such approval is valid only for a period of five years since the date of commencement of production. The date of commencement of production as per Form No. 56F was 01-08-2003. Therefore, the approval grant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 2004-05 onwards for a period of ten years. it was under the impression that once it becomes eligible to claim deduction u/s. 10A of the Act, it can continue to claim the same for ten years as per the provisions of Section 10A of the Act. Accordingly, it started claiming deductions u/s. 10A only from the current year as it did not earn any profits in the previous year; iii. It was further submitted by assessee that it has fulfilled the first condition of obtaining approval of Government through STPI as 100% EOU. Secondly, it obtained the sale proceeds by way of convertible foreign exchange, which is credited into the bank account held in Oriental Bank of Commerce, SD Road, Secunderabad. The bank had also given certificates of 'for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cate in Form 56F the commencement of production was 01.08.2003, therefore the approval granted by STPI was valid only up to 31.07.2008. Further the Assessing Officer also observed that as per the information available on website at www.Hyd.SPTI.in, the appellant company is not registered with STPI for the relevant year. In fact, the submissions made by the AR are contradictory, on one hand he is pleading that application for renewal with STPI was made, on the other hand he is pleading that he was under the impression that the approval was for a period of 10 years, Nevertheless, as per the STPI approval dated 29.08.2003 it is categorically mentioned that SPTI approval was only for a period of 5 years which expired on 31.07.2008 and further e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....A is allowed in the first year, on the basis of satisfying the conditions, assessee would be eligible for deduction for consecutive ten assessment years. In this case, there is no dispute that assessee was eligible for deduction u/s 10A in earlier years. There is also no dispute that assessee has applied for renewal on STPI approval for the later five years which was however, not pursued. According to my understanding, assessee has made a claim of deduction on the strength of the provisions, even though it has accepted that the claim made cannot be substantiated in the absence of STPI approval. It may be assessee's opinion and accepted the disallowance made in assessment proceedings. Mere erroneous claim in the absence of any concealment or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed amount, having recourse to provisions of sec.14A the Act cannot be considered as concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars thereof, especially when all the relevant particulars were disclosed before the AG. The following observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid case of M/s Reliance Petro Products(supra) are relevant: "10. It was tried to be suggested that Section 14A of the Act specifically excluded the deductions in respect of the expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under the Act. It was further pointed out that the dividends from the shares did not form the part of the total income. It was, therefore, reiterated before ....