TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (3) TMI 1664
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessment Year 2011-2012. Brief facts are as under : The petitioner is a Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business of providing accountancy, outsourcing and IT infrastructure management services. For the Assessment Year 2011-2012, the petitioner filed its return of income on 30th November 2011 declaring total income at Rs. 10,52,887/= after claiming deduction of Rs. 56,96,695/= under Section 10B of the Act. The petitioner had obtained Form No. 56G, being a report under Section 10B of the Act. Such return was taken in scrutiny by the Assessing Officer. During such scrutiny assessment, the Assessing Officer had raised queries about deduction under Section 10B of the Act. The petition....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....egulation) Act, 1951 (65 and 1951), and the rules made under Act. As per Instruction dated 09th March, 2009 issued by the CBDT in respect of deduction u/s. 10B of the Income-tax Act 1961, the approval of 100% EOU will be considered valid, once such approval is ratified with the Board of Approval for EOU Scheme. Even, the Export Promotion Council for EOUs and SEZs vide EPCES Circle Co. 68 dated 14.05.2009 circulated instruction dated 9th March, 2009 issued by the CBDT in respect of deduction u/s. 10B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It is observed that there is no proof on record that there is ratification from Board of Approval for EOU Scheme. Therefore, the assessee is not entitled to deduction u/s. 10B of Rs. 56,96,695/-. Further as stated ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct and had chosen not to make any disallowance in respect of the claim of deduction under Section 10B of the Act, while framing assessment under Section 143 [3] of the Act. It is further submitted that for AY 2008-2009 also, deduction under Section 10B of the Act was denied by the respondent and such disallowance was confirmed by the Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals]. The issued was decided by this Court in Tax Appeal no. 439 of 2016 and the appeal preferred by Revenue was dismissed on 14th June 2016. That, benefit under Section 10B of the Act was granted to the petitioner from the first year of its claim [ie., AY 2007-2008] and subsequent years, and therefore, the petitioner cannot be denied claim for deduction under Section 10B of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed a belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment, that too, on account of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts. Learned advocate for the Revenue further submitted that at this stage, in exercise of judicial review, the Court would not go into the sufficiency of the reasons, as long as it is pointed out that the Assessing Officer had tangible material at his command to form such a belief and he after application of mind, formed such bona fide belief, the Court would not scuttle the reopening process. Ultimately, it was requested by learned advocate for the Revenue to dismiss the present writ application. Considering the submissions made by the respective sides and record of this ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eferred Tax Appeal No. 439 of 2016 and this Court was pleased to dismiss the above said Appeal by an Order dated 14th June 2016 for A.Y 2008-2009 and confirmed the deduction under Section 10B of the Act. From the letter dated 19th September 2013, while furnishing the explanation in support of the claim of deduction under Section 10B of the Act, it cannot be stated that there was any failure on the part of the petitioner in disclosing truly and fully all material facts necessary for its assessment for the year under consideration. The then Assessing Officer, at the time of original assessment as such had scrutinized the claim of deduction under Section 10B of the Act and did not chose to make any disallowance against the claim of deduction ....