TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (6) TMI 214
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re and Export of Computer Software/IT enabled services vide Letter of Permission No. STPIN/APP/1152020/201299/70562 dated 15.01.2010 ("LOP"); that subsequently, in terms of the applicable Foreign Trade Policy, an Agreement dated 26.03.2010 was entered between the appellant and the President of India acting through the Director, STPI Noida, while marking a copy of such agreement to the Dy Commissioner Customs & Central Excise, New Delhi. 3. For the assessment year 2011-12, assessee was allowed deduction under section 10 B of the Act to the tune of Rs. 6,37,26,747/-and the income was assessed at Rs. 2,31,272/-by order dated 5/3/2014 passed under section 143(3) of the Act. Such an order was, however, revised by the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax by order dated 22/3/2016 under section 263 of the Act and directing the Assessing Officer to consider the issues relating to the bank realisation certificate authenticating the nature of remittances stated to have been received in India and also the approval of the assessee by the board appointed by the Central government in terms of explanation 2 (iv) of section 10B of the Act. 4. Pursuant to such an order, learned Assessing Offic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ough Ld. AR argued at length on behalf of the assessee basing on the requirement of approval of the board under explanation 2 (iv) of section 10B the changes that were brought in the powers conferred under section 14 of the industries (development and regulation) Act, 1951 and the rules made thereunder from time to time and also the reasons for the bona fide belief and understanding of the assessee that the assessee had met all the conditions of the STPI approval and entered into a contract which was approved by the competent authority fulfils the legal requirements to be entitled for the benefit of the deduction under section 10B of the Act. Ld. AR fairly conceded that, however, the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT v. Regency Creations Ltd (2013) 353 ITR 326 (Delhi) held that the approval contemplated as per Explanation 2(iv) to S.10B, even if from the Director STPI, needs ratification by the "Board" specified therein (in Explanation 2(iv) to S.10B) for it to be a valid approval, and such a finding of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court holds the field as on the date. She, however, submitted that subsequently, in the case of Regency Creations su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orders of the authorities below and prayed to dismiss the appeal. 9. We have gone through the record in the light of the submissions made on either side. Though Ld. AR argued at length stating that in view of the scheme under the software technology Park (STP) scheme, 1991 (STP scheme) and the electronic hardware technology Park scheme, 1993 (EHTP scheme) certain exceptions are carved out for R&D, software and IT enabled services and the administration of the STP/HTP was entrusted to the Ministry of communication and information technology through the Director, software technology Park of India and therefore, the requirement of the approval by the board appointed in this behalf by the Central government is not required, she fairly conceded that the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Regency Creations Ltd (supra), the authority holding the field as on today clearly laid down that the approval contemplated as per explanation 2 (iv) to section 10 B of the Act, even if from the Director, STPI, it needs ratification by the board specified therein. 10. She, therefore, fairly submitted that in view of the fact that the case of the Hon'ble High Court in Rege....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the Act. 13. In fast booking (supra) the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court observed that,- 11. The Respondent Assessees in the above cases, including Valiant Communications Ltd. and Regency Creations Ltd. filed applications before this Court for clarification that even though they may not be entitled to the benefit under Section 10B, they should not be denied the benefit under Section 10A as they satisfied the requirements for availing the benefit under Section 10A. On these applications, this Court passed the following order on 4th January 2013: "Issue notice. Sh. Kiran Babu, Sr. Standing Counsel accepts notice on behalf of the Revenue. The applicant assessee had succeeded before the Tribunal in the contention that it was entitled to the benefit of Section 10B of the Income Tax Act. It had urged that the supporting materials disclose that there was STP clearance/approval under Sectin 10A and that such approval was sufficient to entitle it to the benefit of Section 10B. But judgment, this Court negatives the plea with regard to the approval vis-vis Section 10B and has ruled that separate regime exists. The applicant contends that the CIT(A) and the Tribunal had, in the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erred to, also lays down that the Tribunal, in deciding an appeal, is not confined to the grounds set forth in the memorandum of appeal or those which the appellant may urge with its leave. It can decide the appeal on any ground provided only that the affected party has an opportunity of being heard on that ground. But it has been laid down in a number of cases that this rule does not enable the Tribunal to raise a ground, or permit the party who has not appealed to raise a ground, which will work adversely to the appellant and result in an enhancement." 15. The Supreme Court in NTPC v. CIT(1998) 229 ITR 383 SC has also explained that the power of the Tribunal in dealing with the appeals under Section 254 of the Act is " expressed in the widest possible terms". It was further observed as under: "5. .....The purpose of the assessment proceedings before the taxing authorities is to assess correctly the tax liability of an assessee in accordance with law. If, for example, as a result of a judicial decision given while the appeal is pending before the Tribunal, it is found that a non-taxable item is taxed or a permissible deduction is denied, we do not see any reason why the asse....