TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 390
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...."CIT(A)") for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2011-12 in the proceeding u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act [hereinafter referred to as the 'Act']. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed its return of income for A.Y. 2011-12 on 29.09.2011 declaring total income of Rs. 17,39,370/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. The assessee had claimed deduction u/s. 10B of the IT Act but no report in Form No. 56G was filed by the assessee. In the course of assessment proceeding the assessee has furnished the report in Form No. 56F pertaining to deduction u/s. 10A of the Act. Therefore, the claim for deduction of Rs. 4,93,30,648/- made by the assessee u/s. 10B of the Act, was denied by the AO. Further certain other additi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m providing data entry and processing services to foreign clients and had claimed deduction u/s 10B of the Act in the return of income, in respect of its export profit. The assessee had not submitted form No. 56G, necessary for claiming deduction u/s 10B of the Act. However, the assessee had filed Form 56F before the AO which was in respect of deduction u/s 10A of the Act. The Ld. Sr. DR submitted that since the assessee had claimed deduction u/s 10B of the Act in the past years, the claim for deduction u/s. 10A of the Act as made by the assessee before the AO, was not correct. Therefore, the AO has rightly disallowed the claim for deductions as made by the assessee. The Ld. Sr. DR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) was not correct in allowing t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....867 17916402 2010-11 56F 10A 143(3) 34292151 3519956 15347631 2011-12 56F 10A 21023997 1739367 28306651 8. It thus transpires that the assessee was initially allowed deduction u/s. 10B for the A.Ys. 2002-03 to 2008-09. The alternate claim of deduction u/s. 10A of the Act was also allowed by the Department in the A.Ys. 2009-10 and 2010-11 and the assessment for both the years were completed under scrutiny. Thus, the Department had allowed the claim for deduction u/s. 10A of the Act in respect of income of three units of the assessee in the A.Ys. 2009-10 and 2010-11, after due scrutiny of fulfilment of the conditions. It is not the case of the Revenue that the deduction u/s. 10A of the Ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ced in the case of CIT Vs. Relco Pvt. Ltd. 359 ITR 291(Mad) wherein it is held "where exemption u/s 10B was allowed to assessee in previous assessment year, in absence of any violation of condition of license, exemption was to be granted for subsequent year also." Also the ratio in the case of CIT Vs. Rajasthan Fasteners Pvt. Ltd. 363 ITR 271 (Raj) is relevant wherein it is held, "when facts and circumstances revealed that assessee was eligible for exemption u/s.10B and it has been in order except that instead of mentioning exemption w/s.10B, while e-filing return, it was wrongly on account of typographical error mentioned as section 80IB, it could be said to be such a mistake by which exemption could not be disallowed outrightly". I also r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t Form No. 56F was filed during assessment proceedings for claim u/s. 10A wherein STPI registration is subsisting, the appellant's claim is as per Audited Books of Accounts, therefore, the appellant is eligible to get exemption u/s. 10A of the IT Act, 1961. Therefore, the appellant's ground No. 4 and 6 allowed". 9. The Revenue has been unable to controvert the findings of Ld. CIT(A). Further the Revenue has also been unable to establish that the assessee was not eligible for claim of deduction u/s. 10A of the Act. Rather this aspect was examined by the AO in the course of assessment proceeding for A.Y. 2009-10 and 2010-11 and the claim for deduction u/s. 10A of the Act, was duly allowed to the assessee. Under the circumstances, we do not....