2026 (6) TMI 1320

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2014-15. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: "1. The Ld. AO has erred in law and on facts of the case in re-opening the assessment u/s. 147 of the Act. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the action of reopening is without jurisdiction and is not permissible either in law or on facts. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in upholding the order of Ld. AO u/s 143 r.w.s. 147 of the Act in denying the exemption u/s. 10AA of the Act. 3. The Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in law and on facts in disallowing the exemption claimed of Rs. 6,10,66,460/- by the Appellant under section 10AA of the Act merely on the ground that Form No. 56G was filed instead of FormNo. 56F, without ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... claiming exemption of Rs. 6,10,66,460/-u/s 10AA of the Act. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny u/s 143(3) of the Act and all the details and conditions claiming deduction u/s 10AA of the Act were verified by the Ld. Assessing Officer (in short "Ld. AO") who accepted the return of income by passing the assessment order on 30.11.2016. Subsequently, the assessee's case was reopened pursuant to issue of notice u/s 148A(d) of the Act dated 24.05.2022, response of the assessee dated 26.05.2022 was submitted and subsequently order u/s 148A(d) of the Act was passed and notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 30.07.2022 was issued. The assessee received notice u/s 142(1) of the Act which was responded by the assessee. The Ld. AO observed th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... AR further submitted that the assessee fulfills the criteria of claiming the deduction u/s 10AA of the Act applicable for AY 2014-15 as the assessee is an entrepreneur defined u/s 2(J) of the SEZ Act, 2005. In fact, the assessee company got the approval from the Development Commissioner as a unit established in SEZ vide approval letter dated 19.01.2011and assessee's books were duly audited. The assessee is exclusively engaged in the business of software outside of India and earns income out of exports exclusively. The assessee through its CA erroneously filed Form 56G instead of 56F and this cannot be treated as a mandatory but a procedural lapse which is curable. The assessee's books were audited but due to the mistake of the CA Form 56G....