TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (12) TMI 1184
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er (AO) under s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning AY. 2005-06. 2. The solitary ground of appeal raised by the assessee reads as under:- "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that export revenue subsidy of Rs. 19,33,024, Miscellaneous income of Rs. 10,108 and sundry balances written off of Rs. 37,630 aggregating to Rs. 19,80,762 is not derived from the business carried on by the Appellant and hence not eligible for deduction under section 10A of the Act." 3. The grievance of the assessee concerns eligibility of deduction of export revenue subsidy, miscellaneous income and sundry balances written off etc. aggregating to Rs. 19.80 Lakhs for the purposes of deduc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the case made out by the assessee. The relevant para of the order of the CIT(A) reads as under: "12.5 I have considered the assessment order and the submissions made by the appellant. The appellant has misc. income of Rs. 10,108/-, sundry balance written off of Rs. 37,630/- and export subsidy of Rs. 19,33,024/- as profit and gains derived from exports and claimed exempt u/s. 10A. Sundry balance written off of Rs. 37,630/- and misc. income of Rs. 10,108/- are clearly not in the nature of export The export subsidy of Rs. 19,33,024/- claimed is in fact cash incentive given by Gujarat Government on the export. Therefore, it is not income derived from exports but income received from Government. The deduction u/s. 10A is allowable in respec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ary profits of such undertakings. In view of the above, appellant is not eligible for deduction u/s. 10A in respect of miscellaneous income, sundry balance and export subsidy amounting to Rs. 20,74,209/-. The disallowance made by the Assessing Officer is therefore confirmed." 7. Further aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal. 8. We find that the issue is substantially covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in case of Priyanka Gems (2014) 367 ITR 575 (Guj) as well as Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd. (2010) 194 Taxman 192 (Bom.). The issue is also similarly settled in favour of the assessee by long line of judicial preced....