TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (9) TMI 1132
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'C' Bench, ('the Tribunal' for brevity), in I.T.A.No.2311/Mds/2015 and ITA.No.2312/Mds/2015, for the assessment year 2011-12 & 2012-13. 2. These appeals are entertained on the following substantial questions of Law: (i) Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 80 IA of the Income Tax Act? (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that unabsorbed depreciation of the earlier years before the first year or claim, which was already been absorbed, should not be notionally carried forwar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....granted a Letter of Approval and therefore, assessee would fall within the definition of an entrepreneur as defined under Section 2(j) of Special Economic Zones Act, 2005. The Assessing Officer sought to deny the benefit on the ground that the assessee has violated the terms and conditions in the Letter of Approval, which was granted by the Development Commissioner, for manufacture of bangles and pendants. The basis for arriving at such a conclusion is on the ground that the Development Commissioner initiated proceedings under the provisions of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulations) Act 1992, as the assessee had violated the conditions in the Letter of Approval, which culminated in issuing the order of penalty to them vide order da....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of penalty, appears to have been pending. Aggrieved by the dismissal order dated 16.12.2015, the assessee had preferred appeals in ITA.Nos.2311/Mds/2015 & 2312/Mds/2015, before the Tribunal. The assessee was successful in convincing the Tribunal to hold that there is no violation of the Letter of Approval and there is no marked difference or distinction between a pendant and a medallion. The writ petition which was pending before this Court came to be allowed vide order 13.02.2017. 7. It is the submission of Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant-Revenue that the writ petition was allowed by this Court, based upon the order of the Tribunal. 8. We have gone through the order passed in W.P.No.13538....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch was subsequently quashed, the Development Commissioner has recorded that the date of commencement of production as 14.04.2009. This date is binding on the Income Tax Department, as the competent authority to certify the date of production is the Development Commissioner and not the Assessing Officer. 9. It was pointed by Mr.R.Sivaraman, leaned counsel appearing for the assessee/respondent that the assessee has fullfiled the terms and conditions of the Letter of Approval and the nett foreign exchange earning of the assessee for the years 2010, 2011, 2012 & 2013 is Rs. 74.49 crores. 10. Considering all these facts, we are of the view that the relief granted by the Tribunal by interpreting as to what is the pendant and medallion, cannot b....