TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (6) TMI 733
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,157/- on 28/02/2014. a) The company acquired 100% Software Development EOU status after registering with Software Technology Parks of India [STP], Pune. Hence, the assessee was eligible to claim exemption u/s. 10A. For the purpose of eligibility of deduction u/s. 10B of the Income Tax Act, the competent authority for approval is the Board appointed by the Central Government in this behalf. However, it was seen from the assessment records for A.Y. 2008-09 to A.Y. 2010-11 i.e. three years that the assessee had claimed exemption u/s. 10B of the Act, without getting registered with the Board appointed by the Central Government u/s 14 of the Industries Development and Regulation Act, 1951. Since, assessee had not fulfilled the condition for eligibility of deduction u/s. 10B of the Act, in respect of STPI unit at Pune, the deduction of Rs. 10,55,64,382/- claimed and allowed u/s. 10B in respect of the above unit was irregular and was required to be disallowed. b. It was observed from the submission dated 13/09/2013 that an amount of Rs. 63,00,000/- were debited as Managing Directors Remuneration and TDS was not deducted from the expenditure booked. In view of the above, this expenditu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n that basis, while disposing of the objections of the petitioner, Revenue had dropped this ground. This leaves us with two grounds for reopening the assessment. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that both the heads of income were scrutinized by the Assessing Officer during the original assessment. Any attempt on his part to make additions on these grounds would be based on mere change of opinion. Counsel further submitted that the deduction under section 10B of the Act is available for ten years from the year of setting up of the industry. In case of the assessee assessment year 2005-06 was the first year. Without disturbing the first year of the assessment the Revenue tried to withdraw the deduction in the present year i.e. assessment year 2011-12 which was the seventh year. According to the counsel this is wholly impermissible. 6. On the other hand learned counsel Ms. Bhatt contended that the requirement of registration of a unit for deduction under section 10B of the Act was not examined during the original assessment. This claim was therefore, not scrutinized. The Revenue had issued notice for earlier years to the extent it was permissible looking to the limita....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the same as in earlier years i.e. computer software (as defined in section 10B) and Hardware. The sales Invoices are produced before Your Honour of Both the periods in support of the above. We have also enclosed the Unit wise statement of Income (Annexure P-4). The unit wise Statement of Income shows the computation of Profits of the business qua each Unit separately. It will be found that M.D.salary etc. has been allocated over all the units in equal proportion. The unit wise Profits and Gains of business has been arrived at after deducting the allocated M.D.Salary. The unit wise Profits and Gains of business so arrived at has been considered for computing the deduction u/s. 10B(4). The computation of deduction has to be made as per section 10B(4) i.e. Profits of the business of unit x Export Turnover -------------------------- Total Turnover The computation of Export Turnover and Total Turnover has been given in the Audit Report u/s. 56G. The Audit report carries the computation of deduction as per section 10B(4). We have claimed the deduction u/s. 10B as per the amount mentioned in Audit Report in Form 56G. As such we comply with all the conditions mentioned in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g officer had any doubt about the basis of claim itself, the same could have been examined. On the basis of the same material, it would now not be open for the Assessing Officer to reexamine the claim on the premise that a certain element of the claim was not gone into at the time of original assessment proceedings. 16. In case of Gujarat Power Corporation Ltd.(supra), this Court did leave some room for the Revenue to argue that if a certain element of claim was not gone into by the Assessing Officer in the original assessment, reopening may still be permissible. The Court observed as under : "48. Before closing this issue, we would like to clarify one aspect. We have expressed our opinion on the question framed by us. In a given case, it may so happen that a particular claim may have many facets. For example, a claim of deduction under section 80HHC of the Act would have various parameters. If one of the parameters is scrutinized or accepted either with or without reasons, that by itself may not mean that the entire claim of deduction under section 80HHC of the Act stood verified and accepted by the Assessing Officer. We hasten to add that each case must depend on facts indivi....