Quality BPO Services Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad V. The ACIT.,(OSD)Circle-5, Ahmedabad

ITA 120/AHD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1298 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 9 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 23-10-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 17-01-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DIPAK SUTARIA
• Keywords: Competent authority
• Section: 143(3); 234B; 10B; 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD B BENCH AHMEDABAD BEFORE S/SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JM, & MANISH BORAD, AM. ITA NO.120/AHD/2012 ASST. YEAR: 2008-09 QUALITY BPO SERVICES PVT LTD, 401, GNFC INFO TOWER, S.G. HIGHWAY, BODAKDEV, AHMEDABAD.. VS ACIT (OSD), CIRCLE-5, AHMEDABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN: AAACO 1087G APPELLANT BY SHRI TUSHAR HEMANI, AR RESPONDENT BY SHRI DIPAK SUTARIA, SR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING: 23/10/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 4/11/2015 O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS FILED AGAINST THE O RDER OF CIT(A)- XI, AHMEDABAD DATED 18.11.2011 IN APPEAL NO.CIT(A) -XI(362/10-11. ASSESSMENT FOR ASST. YEAR 2008-09 WAS COMPLETED ON 6.12.2010 U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REF ERRED TO AS THE ACT). ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN ITS APPEAL:- 1. LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMI NG DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION OF RS.67,08,733/- U/S 10B OF THE ACT. BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE FAILURE TO OBTAIN APPROVAL FROM BOARD DESPITE FULFILLING ALL THE COND ITIONS MAKES THE APPELLANT INELIGIBLE TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S 10B OF THE ACT. LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED RATIO OF THE D ECISIONS ITA NO. 120/AHD/2012 ASST. YEAR 2008-09 2 RELIED UPON THAT UNITS APPROVED UNDER SOFTWARE TECH NOLOGY PARKS OF INDIA (STPI) ENTITLES THE APPELLANT TO CLA IM BENEFITS UNDER 100% EOU SCHEME AND HENCE OUGHT TO HAVE GRANT ED CLAIM OF DEDUCTION MADE BY THE APPELLANT. 2. LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DISMISSI NG THE ADDITIONAL GROUND TAKEN BY THE APPELLANT TO ALTERNATIVELY GRAN T DEDUCTION U/S 10A OF THE ACT. LD. CIT(A) GRAVELY ERRED IN REJ ECTING TO ADJUDICATE ADDITIONAL GROUND THAT GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER BY WRONGLY PLACING RELIANCE ON JUDGMENT OF GOETZ (I NDIA) LTD. LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE GRANTED DEDUCTION AS ALL T HE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN U/S 10A OF THE ACT WERE FULFIL LED BY THE APPELLANT. 3. LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 234B & 234C OF THE ACT IS N OT JUSTIFIED. 4. INITIATION OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT I S NOT JUSTIFIED. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, ALTER, ED IT, DELETE, MODIFY OR CHANGE ALL OR ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEA L AT THE TIME OF OR BEFORE THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 2. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT TH E ASSESSEE COMPANY IS A PRIVATE LTD. CO. CARRYING ON THE BUSIN ESS OF PROVIDING SERVICES AS BPO (BUSINESS OF PROCESS OUTSOURCING) F OR PROVIDING ACCOUNTING SERVICES. ASSESSEE HAS FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 29.9.2008 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.NIL. ASSESSE E CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF RS.67,08,733/- U/S 10B OF THE ACT, WHI CH IS AVAILABLE FOR NEWLY ESTABLISHED 100% EXPORT ORIENTED UNDERTAKING SCHEME. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AS SESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY APPROVAL TAKEN FROM APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10B OF THE ACT AND THEREFORE DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 10B OF THE ACT AND ASSESSED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.67,08 ,733. ITA NO. 120/AHD/2012 ASST. YEAR 2008-09 3 AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A ) WHICH ALSO COULD NOT BRING ANY RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE AS THE L D. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 10B OF THE ACT BY OBSERVING AS UNDER :- 2.3 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RATIO OF REGEN CY CREATIONS LTD. (SUPRA) CASE. IN THIS CASE, IT IS CLEARLY MENTIONED THAT AS PER CBDTS CLARIFICATION CIRCULAR VIDE DOF NO.178/30/09-ITA(1) DATED 6.5.2009, IT IS CLARIFIED THAT A UNIT APPROVED BY DIRECTOR )IT) UNDER SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY PARK SCHEME WILL BE ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTI ON U/S 10A OF THE IT ACT AND NOT U/S 10B OF THE IT ACT. THIS CLARIFIC ATION HAS NOT BEEN OVER RULED BY THE CBDT AND ACCORDINGLY, I AM INCLIN ED TO FOLLOW THE CBDTS CIRCULAR IN THIS REGARD. SECONDLY, THERE IS A CONFLICTING DECISION BY THE H ONBLE HYDERABAD TRIBUNAL. IN THE CASE OF INFOTECH ENTERPR ISES LTD. VS. JOINT CIT (2003) 85 ITD 325, IT WAS HELD THAT FOR THE PUR POSE OF SECTION 10B, 100% EOU IS ONLY THAT WHICH IS SO APPROVED BY THE BOARD APPOINTED BY CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IN EXERCISE OF POWE RS CONFERRED IN THE SECTION 14 OF THE IDAR ACT, 1951 AND 100% EXPOR T ORIENTED UNIT UNDER SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY PARK SCHEME CANNOT BE EQU ATED WITH 100% EXPORTED ORIENTED UNIT APPROVED BY BOARD U/S 1 4 OF THE IDAR ACT. THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT THEREFORE, ENTITLED TO EX EMPTION U/S 10B IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH APPROVAL. IN THE INSTANT CASE ALSO, THE APPELLANT IS HAVING APPROVAL FROM DIRECTOR (IT) SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY PARK OF INDIA AND NOT FROM BOARD CONSTITUTED U/S 14 OF IDAR ACT, 1951. THIS RESPECTF ULLY FOLLOWING THE CBDT CLARIFICATION BEARING DOF NO. 178/30/09-ITA(1) DATED 6.5.2009 AND ITAT ORDER IN THE CASE OF INFOTECH ENTERPRISE L TD. (SUPRA). I AM INCLINED TO AGREE WITH THE AO ON THIS POINT. EVEN T HE APPELLANT IS ALSO NOT VERY SURE FOR MANTAINABILITY OF DEDUCTION U/S 1 0B OF THE IT ACT AND MOVED ON ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL ON 17.11.2011, CONTENDING THAT IT IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 10A OF THE IT ACT AND DEDUCTION MAY BE ALLOWED U/S 10A OF THE IT ACT TO IT. ITA NO. 120/AHD/2012 ASST. YEAR 2008-09 4 2.4 IN VIEW OF ABOVE FACT, I HOLD THAT THE APPELLAN T HAD NOT FULFILLED ELIGIBILITY CONDITION AS LAID DOWN IN SUB-CLAUSE IV TO EXPLANATION 2 TO SECTION 10B OF THE IT ACT AND ACCORDINGLY, IT IS NO T ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 10B OF THE I.T. ACT. THIS WAY, DISALL OWANCE OF DEDUCTION OF RS.67,08,733/- CLAIMED U/S 10B OF THE I.T. ACT I S CONFIRMED. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 3. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS NOW IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. AT THE OUTSET THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE APPELLANT IS CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF PROCESS OU TSOURCING ACTIVITIES LIKE REVENUE ACCOUNTING, BACK OFFICE OPERATIONS, CA LL CENTRE, DATA PROCESSING ETC. IT IS UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE APPE LLANT IS REGISTERED WITH SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY PARK OF INDIA, GANDHINAGAR , GUJARAT, AS HUNDRED PERCENT EXPORT ORIENTED UNDERTAKING UNDER STP SCHEME FOR DEVELOPMENT OF COMPUTER SOFTWARE AND ENABLED SE RVICES W.E.F. 28.06.2006. A COPY OF LETTER OF APPROVAL IS FORMING PART FROM PAGES 1 TO 4 OF THE PAPER BOOK DATED 15.3.2012. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE IS CLAIMING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B OF THE ACT WITH EFFECT FROM ASST. YEAR 2007-08 ONWARDS. SO MUCH SO THAT ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 10B FOR ASST. YEAR 2007-08 AT RS.23,68,544/- IN THE RETURN OF INCOME SUBMITTED ON 20.11.2007 AND THE SAME HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS NO ACTION HAS BEEN TAKEN AGAINST THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 10B OF THE ACT F OR THIS YEAR. FURTHER FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2010-11, THE ASSESSING OFFICER H AS ALLOWED THE DEDUCTION OF RS.57,56,945/- AS AGAINST THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE AT RS.82,55,275/- IN ITS ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTIO N 143(3) OF THE ACT AND SIMILARLY FOR ASST. YEAR 2011-12 ALSO THE A SSESSING OFFICER IN HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 6.1.2014 FRAMED UNDER SE CTION 143(3) OF THE ACT HAS ALLOWED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B OF THE ACT AT ITA NO. 120/AHD/2012 ASST. YEAR 2008-09 5 RS.56,96,695/-. THE LD. AR WITH THE HELP OF THE FAC TS OF ITS CASE FOR ASST. YEARS, 2007-08, 2010-11 AND 2011-12 TRIED TO BRING FOCUS TO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN GETTING THE CLAIM O F DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B OF THE ACT FROM THE YEAR BEFORE THE YEA R UNDER APPEAL AND ALSO IN THE YEARS FOLLOWING THE YEAR UNDER APPE AL WHICH TENTAMOUNTS TO PROVE THAT ASSESSEE WAS FULFILLING T HE REQUIRED ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA MEANT FOR GETTING CLAIM OF DED UCTION UNDER SECTION 10B OF THE ACT FOR PROFITS/GAINS DERIVED BY IT 100% EXPORT ORIENTED UNDERTAKING FROM THE EXPORT OF ARTICLES OR THINGS O R COMPUTER SOFTWARE. THE ONLY REASON OUT OF WHICH ASSESSING OFFICER DENI ED THE DEDUCTION U/S 10B OF THE ACT FOR THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL WAS TH AT ASSESSEE WAS NOT POSSESSING APPROVAL TAKEN FROM APPROPRIATE AUTH ORITY AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10B WHICH READS AS BELOW :- HUNDRED PER CENT EXPORT ORIENTED UNDERTAKING MEAN S AN UNDERTAKING WHICH HAS BEEN APPROVED AS A HUNDRED PE R CENT EXPORT ORIENTED UNDERTAKING BY THE BOARD APPOINTED IN THIS BEHALF BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IN EXERCISE OF THE POWERS CONFERRED BY SECTION 14 OF THE INDUSTRIES (DEVELOPM ENT AND REGULATION) ACT, 1951 )65 OF 1951) AND THE RULES MA DE UNDER THAT ACT. 4. HOWEVER, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED LETTER OF PERMISSION DATED 28.6.2006 FROM SOFTWARE TECHNOL OGY PARKS OF INDIA (AN AUTONOMOUS SOCIETY UNDER THE DEPARTMENT O F INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATION & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA) WHICH FULFILLS THE REQUIREMENT OF BEING APPROVED AS 100% EXPORT ORIENTED UNDERTAKING BY THE BOARD AP POINTED IN THIS BEHALF BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT, AS SOFTWARE TECHN OLOGY PARKS OF ITA NO. 120/AHD/2012 ASST. YEAR 2008-09 6 INDIA (STPL), COMES UNDER THE MINISTRY OF COMMUNICA TION AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. IN SUP PORT OF ITS CLAIM UNDER SECTION 10B OF THE ACT BEING HOLDING OF LETTE R OF APPROVAL FROM STPL THE LD. AR RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF ITAT, DEL HI BENCH IN THE CASE OF REGENCY CREATORS LTD. IN ITA NO.1588/DEL/20 10; THE ORDER OF ITAT, AHMEDABAD BENCH IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. E-INFO CHIP LTD. IN ITA NO.2311/AHD/2008 DTD.24 TH SEPTEMBER, 2010; ORDER OF ITAT, HYDERABAD BENCH IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. VISION 2H + INC (2014) 34 ITR (TRIB) 0510 (HYDERABAD). 5. THE LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORI TIES. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEME NTS REFERRED BY THE LD. AR. THE ISSUE UNDER APPEAL RELATES TO EXAMI NATION OF THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 10B OF THE ACT AT RS.67,0 8,733/- WHICH HITHERTO HAS BEEN DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER AND FURTHER SUSTAINED BY CIT(A). FROM PERUSAL OF RECORDS WE FI ND THAT ASSESSEE WAS DULY ALLOWED DEDUCTION U/S 10B OF THE ACT FOR A SST. YEAR 2007-08 AND THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN CHALLENGED BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER BY WAY OF REOPENING OF THE CASE FOR ASST. YEAR 2007-08 AND ASSESSEE HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY ALLOWED DEDUCTIONS U/S 10B OF THE ACT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ASST. YEARS 20010-11 AND 2011 -12 IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. ASSESSEE I S PROVIDING SIMILAR TYPE OF SERVICES AS REQUIRED UNDER THE PROV ISIONS OF SECTION 10B OF THE ACT AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ACCEPT ED THE SAME AND THE ONLY REASON REVOLVES HERE FOR WHICH ASSESSING O FFICER HAS DENIED ITA NO. 120/AHD/2012 ASST. YEAR 2008-09 7 THE CLAIM U/S 10B OF THE ACT IS THAT IT DOES NOT PO SSESS PROPER APPROVAL AS A 100% EXPORT ORIENTED UNDERTAKING BY T HE BOARD APPOINTED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IN EXERCISE OF POWERS CONFERRED BY SECTION 14 OF THE INDUSTRIES (DEVELOPMENT & REGU LATION) ACT, 1951 (65 OF 1951) AND THE RULES MADE UNDER THAT ACT. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS REFERRED TO VARIOUS JUDI CIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS WHEREIN LETTER OF APPROVAL RECEIVED FROM STPL IS TREATED AS PROPER APPROVAL, AS REQUIRED BY THE PROV ISIONS OF SECTION 10B. 7. IN THE CASE OF REGENCY CREATORS LTD. VS. ACIT IN ITA NO.1588/DEL/2010, ITAT, DELHI BENCH HAS HELD AS UND ER: 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND HAVE PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. NO DOUBT, THE CBDT CLARIFICATION (SUPRA) STATES THAT EXEMPTION IN RESPECT OF A UNIT SET UP IN SOFTWARE T ECHNOLOGY PARK IS GRANTED TO A UNIT APPROVED U/S 10A OF THE ACT AND N OT U/S 10B THEREOF. HOWEVER, THE PRESS NOTES 5 & 2 (SUPRA) ARE TO THE C ONTRARY. PRESS NOTE NO.5 (1997 SERIES) WAS ISSUED ON 21.5.97 BY TH E DEPUTY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, WHEREAS PRESS NOTE NO.1993 SERIES), WAS ISSUED ON 9.3.93 BY THE DEPUTY ECONOMI C ADVISER. FURTHER, VIDE THE AFORESAID COMMUNICATION DATED 31. 3.2011, IT HAS BEEN STATED BY THE CPIO AND DIRECTOR UNDER THE RTI, AS FOLLOWS : SUBJECT: RTI APPLICATION RECEIVED FROM SHRI MAHESH SHRIVASTAA, KESHAVPURAM, DELHI, REGARDING APPROVAL OR RATIFICATION OF STPL, APPROVAL BY BOA FORMED BY MOC TO CLAIM BENEFITS OF 100% EOU SCHEME. PLEASE REFER TO YOUR RTI APPLICATION DATED MARCH 1 0,2011 RECEIVED ON 17.03.2011 ON THE SUBJECT MENTIONED ABO VE AND TO INFORM THAT NO APPROVAL/RATIFICATION OF STPI APPROV AL IS REQUIRED FROM BOA FORMED BY MINISTRY OF COMMERCE BY POWER CO NFERRED ITA NO. 120/AHD/2012 ASST. YEAR 2008-09 8 UNDER SECTION 14 OF IDR ACT, 1951. INTER-MINISTERIA L STANDING COMMITTEE FOR EHTPS AND ESTPS (IMSC) IS COMPETENT I N GRANT APPROVAL FOR STPI UNIT TO CLAIM ALL BENEFITS UNDER 100% EOU SCHEME AS PER PRESS NOTE 2 OF 1993 (COPY ENCLOSED) . 8. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE FIND THE GRIEVANCE OF T HE ASSESSEE TO BE JUSTIFIED AND IT IS ACCEPTED AS SUCH. WE HOLD TH AT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 10B OF THE ACT. IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. E-INFOCHIP LTD. IN ITA NO.23 11/AHD/2008, PRONOUNCED ON 24 TH SEPTEMBER, 2014, THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH HELD AS UNDER :- 6. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FINDINGS OF CIT(A), WE FIN D THAT THE UNIT OF ASSESSEE IS REGISTERED WITH STPI AND LETTER OF ACCE PTANCE IS ISSUED BY THE CONCERNED AUTHORITIES REGARDING LEGAL AGREEM ENT EXERCISED BY IT. WE FIND FROM THE COPY OF CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY CUSTOM AUTHORITIES REGARDING PERMISSION AND LICENCE WAS GRANTED ON 04. 03.2005 WHICH DATES THAT TO THE DATE OF APPLICATION AND STPI THE APPROVING AUTHORITY HAS NOT TAKEN ANY ADVERSE VIEW. AS REGARDS TO EXPOR T REALIZATION BY THE UNIT WHICH IS DEPOSITED IN AHMEDABAD UNITS BANK ACCOUNT THE FOREIGN INWARD REMITTANCE CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY AX IS BANK PUNE UNIT CLEARLY MENTIONED THAT THE SAME WAS ISSUED BY HEAD OFFICE OF AXIS BANK AND IT WAS DEPOSITED IN ACCOUNT OF PUNE UNIT. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE CIT(A) HAS CORRE CTLY ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON FACTS AND WE CONFIRM THE S AME. THIS ISSUE OF REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. VISION 2K+INC (SUPRA), ITAT , HYDERABAD BENCH HELD AS UNDER :- WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUS ED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT IT IS ADMITTED FA CT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS OBTAINED THE APPROVAL FROM STPI, HYDERABAD AS 1 00% EOU. THE CITS FINDING IS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR RELIEF UNDER ITA NO. 120/AHD/2012 ASST. YEAR 2008-09 9 SECTION 10B OF THE ACT ONLY ON THE GROUND THAT 100% EOU UNDER STPI SCHEME CANNOT BE EQUATED WITH THE 100% EOU APPROVED BY THE BOARD. SINCE WE HAVE ALREADY HELD IN THE CASE OF SU DHARANI (SUPRA) THAT THE APPROVAL OF 100% EOU BY THE BOARD AND STPI IS ONE AND THE SAME AND HENCE THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTI ON UNDER SECTION 10B OF THE ACT. IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT THE VALIDITY OF AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT HAS TO BE TESTED WITH REGARD TO THE POSITION OF LAW AS IT EXISTS ON THE DATE ON WHICH SUCH AN ORDER IS PASSED BY THE CIT. IN THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION, IT IS CLEAR T HAT ON THE DATE, WHEN THE CIT PASSED HIS ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE A CT, THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SUDHARANI (SUPRA). I T IS SETTLED LAW THAT WHEN TWO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE ON THE DATE OF THE ORDE R PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER, THE CIT SHOULD AGREE WITH THE VIEW TA KEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS IN CONSONANCE WITH VIEW TAKEN BY THIS TRIBUNAL, EVEN IF THERE HAS BEEN A LOSS OF REVENUE. HENCE, PO WERS UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT CANNOT BE EXERCISED BY THE C IT. OUR VIEW IS FORTIFIED BY THE JUDGMENT OF DELHI HIGH COURT IN TH E CASE OF CIT VS. HONDA SIEL POWER PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. IN ITA NOS.1376 /2009 AND 1382/2009 DATED 5.7.2010. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE REVERSE THE ORDER OF THE CIT AND ALLOW THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESS EE. 7. IN THE LIGHT OF DECISIONS OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH A S WELL AS OTHER BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL, WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN CATEGO RICALLY HELD THAT APPROVAL BY SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY PARKS OF INDIA COME S UNDER THE MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATION & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY & IS A COMPETENT AUTHORITY TO GRANT APPROVAL TO SUCH UNITS FOR CLAIMING BENEFITS U/S 10B AS 100% EXPORT ORIENTED UNDERTAKIN G AND THE SAME IS POSSESSED BY ASSESSEE AND ALSO LOOKING TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE OF ASSESSEE WHEREIN ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ALLOWED DEDUCTIONS U/S 10B IN ASST. YEARS 2007-08, 2010-11 & 2011-12 CONSI STENTLY, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B AT RS.67,08,733/- IS JUSTIFIED AND ACCO RDINGLY THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IS QUASHED AND THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. ITA NO. 120/AHD/2012 ASST. YEAR 2008-09 10 8. GROUND NO.3 RELATES TO INTEREST U/S 234B & 234C OF THE ACT. THIS IS CONSEQUENTIAL. 9. GROUND NO.4 IS REGARDING PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C). THIS GROUND IS PREMATURE HENCE NOT ADJUDICATED. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 4/11/2015 SD/- SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER (MANISH BORAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED 4/11/2015 MAHATA/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD ITA NO. 120/AHD/2012 ASST. YEAR 2008-09 11 1. DATE OF DICTATION: 2/11/2015 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE T HE DICTATING MEMBER: 3/11/2015 OTHER MEMBER: 3. DATE ON WHICH APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P. S./P.S.: 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE TH E DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT: __________ 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE S R. P.S./P.S.: 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK: 4/11/2015 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK: 8. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER: 9. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER: