TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (10) TMI 424
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Years (AYs) 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11. The assessee has also filed Cross Objections in the aforesaid Revenue's appeals. 2. The common grounds raised by the Revenue for all the three years against the impugned order of the CIT(A) are broadly similar. The Ground extracted from ITA No.617/Ahd/2015 - AY 2008-09 for ready reference read as under:- 1. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in allowing the assessee's alternate claim of deduction u/s.10A which was not claimed in the Return of Income, in place of its original claim of deduction u/s.10B. 2. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by not calling for the AO's comments to the rejoinder filed by the assessee on the Remand Report of the AO. 3. The common grounds raised in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of CIT(A). Firstly, it challenged assumption of jurisdiction under s.147 and secondly, on merits, it has claimed eligibility of deduction under s.10B as claimed. 5. Briefly stated, the assessee-company is stated to be registered with STPI (Software Technology Parks of India), Gandhinagar as 100% EOU (Export Oriented Undertaking) for carrying on business of development and export of computer software and IT enabled services. On the strength of aforesaid registration, the assessee filed its return of income for the various assessment years in captioned appeals wherein deductions of varied amounts have been claimed under s.10B of the Act. The Assessing Officer (AO) denied the claim of deduction under s.10B against the profits and gains deriv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed by the action of the CIT(A) in allowing the alternative claim of the assessee under s.10A of the Act, the revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. Likewise, the assessee has also challenged the denial of original claim of deduction under s.10B of the Act as per its return of income. 8. The Ld.DR for the revenue Mr.Prasoon Kabra at the outset submitted that the CIT(A) misdirected itself in law in allowing alternative claim of deduction u/s.10A of the Act without giving any opportunity to the AO to verify the terms and conditions specified for eligibility of claim under s.10A of the Act. The Ld.DR submitted that sections 10A & 10B has been deliberately segregated by the Statute and conditions for claim of deductions are required to be sa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pproval granted by the competent authority (Development Commissioner) of STPI as a matter of fact, there is no warrant for denial of deduction under s.10B of the Act as claimed. 10. The Ld.AR next submitted that the claim of deduction under s.10B of the Act was earlier allowed after due deliberation in the original assessment order passed under s.143(3) of the Act dated 25/10/2010. It was thus contended that the case re-opened under s.147 of the Act to deny the claim earlier allowed on a mere change of opinion is not sustainable in law. The Ld.AR accordingly submitted that appeal of the Revenue is required to be dismissed and Cross Objections of the assessee for eligibility of claimed under s.10B of the Act is required to be upheld. 11. W....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t been complied with. In the instant case, it appears from the communication letter dated 14/03/2013 that letter of permission dated 25/05/2007 issued in favour of the assessee for registration as 100% EOU under STPI Scheme was stated to be ratified in the first meeting of Inter-Ministerial Standing Committee (IMSC) on 2-6-2008 constituted by Central Government for such purposes. As noted, the ratification subsequently carried out and communicated will operate from the date of letter of permission issued by the Development Commissioner. Therefore, in our considered view, the action of the AO and CIT(A) in denying the claim of deduction under s.10B of the Act requires to be set aside as unsustainable in law. Consequently, the Cross Objection....