MAXVAL TECHNOLOGIES P. LTD, NAVI MUMBAI V. ITO WD 3 PANVEL, RAIGAD

ITA 5991/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 84018 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-10-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 28-10-2014
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 26-08-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIJAY KUMAR BORA
• Assessee Lawyers: C N VAZE
• Section: 10B

Judgement Text

, , , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES B, MUMBAI , BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.5991/MUM/2011 (A.Y. 2008-09) MAXVAL TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. TRIBUNAL-251, 6 TH FLOOR, TOWER NO.10, BELAPUR STATION COMPLEX, CBD BELAPUR, NAVI MUMBAI-400 614. / VS. ITO WARD-3 PANVEL 3 RD FLOOR, TRIFFED TOWER OPP. KHANDA COLONY DIST. RAIGAD. ( ! / // / APPELLANT) ( '# ! / RESPONDENT) P.A. NO. ! $ % $ % $ % $ % /APPELLANT BY : SHRI C.N. VAZE '# ! $ % $ % $ % $ % /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI VIJAY KUMAR BORA $ &'( / / / / DATE OF HEARING : 28.10.2014 )*+ $ &'( / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28.10.2014 ,- ,- ,- ,- / / / / O R D E R PER JOGINDER SINGH (JM) : THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER DA TED 16/5/2011 OF THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY CONF IRMING DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S.10B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (T HE ACT). ITA NO.5991/MUM/2011 2 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE SHRI C.N. VAZE CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE TO GET DEDUCTION U/S. 10B OF THE ACT MERELY ON THE GROUND THAT APPROVAL OF SUCH UNIT HAS BEEN GRANTED BY DIRECTOR OF STPI AND MORE SPECIFICALLY W HEN ALL THE CONDITIONS WERE FULFILLED BY THE ASSESSEE . ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. DR SHRI VIJAY KUMAR BORA DEFENDED THE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY THE LD. CIT(A). 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PE RUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY INCO RPORATED WITH THE OBJECTIVE TO CARRY ON THE BUSINESS OF DEVELOPMENT O F ENGINEERING AND DESIGN SOFTWARE. THE ASSESSEE IS AN 100% EXPORT ORI ENTED UNIT WITH SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY PARK OF INDIA (STPI). THE ASSES SEE DECLARED NIL INCOME ON 31/5/2008 AFTER CLAIMING THE AMOUNT OF RS .1,00,31,171/- AS DEDUCTION U/S. 10B OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE FILED R EVISED RETURN ADMITTING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,32,87,098/- U/S. 115 JB OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED WHETHER ITS APPROVAL AS 100% EOU UNDER STPI HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE BOARD. AS PER THE REVENUE THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF INTER-MINISTERIAL STANDING COMMITTEE . THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT APPROVAL GIVEN BY THE DIRECTOR OF STPI IS SUFFICIENT ENOUGH AND APPROVAL FROM THE BOARD IS NO T NECESSARY FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE ITA NO.5991/MUM/2011 3 OF ITO VS. REGENCY CREATION LTD. THE ASSESSING OFFI CER REJECTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND DISALLOWED THE CLAI MED DEDUCTION U/S. 10B. THE DELHI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN DCIT VS. VALLIANT COM. LTD. (ITA NO.2706/DEL./08 ) HELD THAT REGISTRATION GRANTED BY STPI IS SUFFICIE NT TO ALLOW DEDUCTION. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) AFFIRMED T HE STAND OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE GROUND IN THE ABSENCE OF R ATIFICATION BY THE BOARD THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE GRANTED DEDUCTION U/S. 10B. BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE INVITED OUR ATTENT ION TO THE LETTER DATED 2/9/2011 ADDRESSED TO THE ASSESSEE BY STPI AFFIRMIN G THAT RATIFICATION IS NOT NECESSARY AS THEY WORK UNDER IMSC AND FURTHE R THE ASSESSEE WAS GRANTED APPROVAL AS 100% EOU AS PER PARA 6.26 OF TH E FOREIGN TRADE POLICY (FTP). OUR ATTENTION WAS FURTHER INVITED TO THE LETTER DATED 31.3.2006 (PG-26) INSTRUCTION NO.1/2006 DT.31/3/200 6 (CLARIFICATION REGARDING DEDUCTION). IN VIEW OF THIS FACT THE LD. CIT(A) IS DIRECTED TO CONSIDER THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AFTER PROVIDING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO AT LIBERTY TO FURNISH EVIDENCE, IF ANY, IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM. THUS, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSE SSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 4. FINALLY, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR S TATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. ITA NO.5991/MUM/2011 4 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF LD. REPRESENTATIVES FROM BOTH SIDES AT THE CONCLUSION O F THE HEARING ON 28 TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2014 . ,- $ )*+ .,/ 28.10.2014 * $ 6 SD/- SD/- (N.K. BILLAIYA) (JOGINDER SINGH) ( ,7 ( ,7 ( ,7 ( ,7 / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ,7 ,7 ,7 ,7 / JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; ., DATED : 28 TH OCT. 2014. ../ JV, SR.PS . ,- $ '&8 98+& ,- $ '&8 98+& ,- $ '&8 98+& ,- $ '&8 98+&/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ! / THE APPELLANT 2. '# ! / THE RESPONDENT. 3. : ( ) / THE CIT, MUMBAI. 4. : / CIT(A)-13, MUMBAI 5. 8=6 '& , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 6> ? / GUARD FILE. ,- ,- ,- ,- / BY ORDER, #8& '& //TRUE COPY// @ @@ @/ // /A B A B A B A B (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, MUMBAI