TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (5) TMI 517
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al of exemption, it was stated, was on account of and for the period, the expansion/new unit of the assessee, originally registered under STPI Gandhinagar jurisdiction, was allegedly not granted approval by STPI. While the assessee was found to have shifted to a new address during the impugned year in January 2010 and undertaken activities therefrom, the new/expansion unit was found by the Assessing Officer (AO) to have been approved by the STPI only in the subsequent year, in April 2010.The new/expansion unit was also noted by the AO to have raised export bills from September 2009, even prior to shifting there in January 2010. Accordingly therefore the AO denied the assessee grant of exemption to the profits generated from activities carried out in the new/expansion unit from September 2009 onwards ,which amounted to Rs. 1,56,32,460/-, rejecting the assesses contention that the approval though granted in April 2010, should be treated as relating back to January 2010 when the assessee had initially applied for approval but the grant of the same was delayed on account of certain discrepancies noted in the application filed, which took some time to correct in a fresh application file....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....04,930. 1.1 The learned AO erred in law and on facts in considering that the appellant does not have approval of Software Technology Park of India, Gandhinagar ('STPI') for its new unit located at "First floor Vadodara Hyper, Dr. Vikram Sarabhai Marg, Alkapuri, Vadodara" ("Vadodara Hyper") with effect from January 1, 2010. 1.2 The learned AO erred on facts in considering the date of STPI approval as April 21, 2010, for Vadodara Hyper. 1.3 The learned AO erred on facts in mentioning in the impugned order that the appellant accepted that it has no STPI approval for its Vadodara Hyper for the period from January 1,2010 to March 31, 2010. 1.4 The learned AO failed to appreciate the fact that the Software Export Declaration (softex) Forms filed with STPI for the months January 2010 to March 2010, has been approved by STPI, which in itself proves that appellant's Vadodara Hyper unit was approved from January 1, 2010. 1.5 The learned AO failed to appreciate the fact that the appellant filed the application for approval of its Vadodara Hyper premises in the month of January 2010 itself and the delay in approval was because of the rea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ards. • That in view of the above though the approval was granted in April 2010 it should be deemed to have been granted from the date of application filed by the assessee before the STPI i.e. January 2010. 7. To substantiate its contention, our attention was drawn to the following documents. (i) Letter of Permission granted by STPI dated 19/10/2006 placed before us at paper book page no. 10 to 13. (ii) Application filed by the assessee to STPI date 06.01.2010 for grant of approval to expansion of its premises of the work located at new address: First Floor "Vadodara Hyper", Dr. Vikram Sarabhai Marg, Alkapuri, Vadodara-390007, placed before us at paper book page no. 2 to 17. (iii) Letter from STPI addressed to the assessee dated 11.01.2010 pointing out discrepancies in the application submitted by the assessee dated 06.01.2010, placed before us at paper book page no. 28. (iv) Assessees letter dated 05.03.2010 to STPI along with all enclosures rectifying discrepancies noted earlier by STPI in its original application 2006 placed before us at paper book page no. 27 to 38. (v) Application to STPI filed by the Assessee dated ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y considered. However, the same was not found tenable. In its reply, the assessee had accepted the fact that it had no approval for new location for the period from 01.01.2010 to 31,03.2010. Further, It is important to mention herewith that in its above reply, the assessee has itself stated that the delay in approval from the STPI was due to discrepancies / lacuna find out by the STPI In the application of the assessee company. It shows that the delay in getting approval from the STPI was because of non fulfillment of the conditions laid down by the STPI. Since, in view of the CBDT circular No. 1 /2005 dated 6th January 2005, the receipt of the assessee is eligible for exemption u/s 1QA of the Act from the date of approval of STPI, Therefore, the entire receipts of the assessee, for the period for which, the assessee has no approval from STPI, is not eligible for exemption u/s 10 A of the Act. 13. Reaffirmed by the DRP at para 16.1 of its order as under: 161. Basically the assesee's objection is twofold:- regarding the disallowance itself and quantification of the disallowance. The Assessee argued that it had applied for the approval w,e,f January 1, 2010 and approv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as an approved unit for this period which is in dispute before us, which is a glaring and undisputed fact, we cannot fathom as to why this fact escaped the attention of the Revenue authorities below who did not care to look beyond the date of the letter granting approval to the unit. Therefore we find that the objection of the Revenue to the approval granted to the assessee unit being retrospective, has no legs to stand upon and is controverted by the fact of the STPI, Gandhinagar itself treating the assessee unit as approved in the said period by certifying its export invoices raised during the period as required under the scheme for submission to RBI. 16 Even otherwise, on considering the entire facts and circumstances leading to the grant of approval, it is obvious that the approval was in pursuance to the initial application filed by the assessee in January 2010. The later application filed in April 2010 only cured certain deficiencies/discrepancies noted by the STPI in the earlier application filed, for which it was duly penalized also by the Director STPI. 17. The lapses/discrepancies noted in the assesses application filed in January 2010, communicated to it by the STP....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The Show Cause Notice was issued to the unit as the unit had violated the policy and procedural norms in (i) obtaining approval & custom bonding formalities for the additional location 1st Floor, Vadodara Hyper, Dr. Vikram Sarabhai Marg, Alkapuri, Vadodara-390 007 prior to shifting of the unit location and (ii) debonding of unit location (i) 101-102,1st Floor, SampattiSardarBaug Lane, Alkapuri, Vadodara-390 007 and (ii) 201-202, 2nd floor, SampattiSardarBaug Lane, Alkapuri, Vadodara-390 007 prior to leasing. As the urathave violated the Foreign Trade Policy norms, I hereby impose a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) for violation of Foreign Trade Policy procedure/norms. 20. If the original form was irrelevant as is the case of the Revenue, there was no occasion for the assessee to be penalized for violating prescribed Rules. The violation was undoubtedly noted from the application filed by the assessee in January 2010 for approval of expansion Unit and it pertained to more particularly the expansion Unit not being approved as a bonded warehouse by the Customs and Central Excise authority as on the date of seeking approval i.e. January 2010. If the approval was w....