The DCIT, Circle-4, Ahmedabad V. Gateway Techno Labs Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

ITA 711/AHD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9023 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 09-03-2017
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 10-03-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIBHA BHALLA
• Assessee Lawyers: J P SHAH
• Section: 143(3); 14A; 10B

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD C BENCH AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI S. S. GODARA, JM & SHRI MANISH BORAD, AM. ITA NO.711 & 712/AHD/2014 ASST. YEAR: 2008-09 & 2009-10 DCIT, CIR-4, AHMEDABAD. VS. GATEWAY TECHNO LABS (P) LTD., B-81, CORPORATE HOUSE, JUDGES BUNGLOW ROAD, BODAKDEV, AHMEDABAD. APPELLANT RESPONDENT PAN AABCG 4206C APPELLANT BY SMT. VIBHA BHALLA, CIT, DR, RESPONDENT BY SHRI J. P. SHAH, AR DATE OF HEARING: 9/3/2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 14/03/2017 O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . THESE TWO APPEALS OF REVENUE FOR ASST. YEAR 2008-0 9 & 2009- 10 ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER OF LD. COM MISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A)-VIII, AHMEDABAD, DATED 31.12.2013 VID E APPEAL NO.CIT(A)-VIII/ACIT/CIR-4/173 & 174/11-12 ARISING O UT OF SEPARATE ORDERS U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN S HORT THE ACT) FRAMED BY ACIT, CIR-4, AHMEDABAD OF EVEN DATED 8.11 .2011. AS THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS ARE SIMILAR RELATI NG TO THE SAME ITA NO. 711 & 712/AHD/2014 ASST. YEAR 2008-09 & 2009-10 2 ASSESSEE, THEY HAVE BEEN HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEI NG DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM RECORDS ARE THAT ASSESSEE BEING A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING OF CUSTOMIZED SOFTWARE FOR COMPUTER. I T FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASST. YEAR 2008-09 ON 28.09.2008 DECLARI NG TOTAL INCOME AT RS.13,35,346/- AFTER CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S 10A OF THE ACT AT RS.11,97,44,182/-. CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY A SSESSMENT AND NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT DATED 27.7.2011 WAS DU LY SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. NECESSARY DETAILS WERE FURNISHED AS REQUI RED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. LD. ASSESSING OFFICER FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENCE OF PREVIOUS ASSESSMENT ORDERS U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT WH EREIN ASSESSEE WAS DENIED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 10A OF THE AC T AT RS.11,97,44,182/- AS THE MATTER WAS PENDING BEFORE HON. GUJARAT HIGH COURT. APART FROM THIS, ADDITION WAS ALSO MADE U/S 14A OF THE ACT AT 1,54,799/-. THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 10A OF THE ACT FOR ASST. YEAR 2009-10 IS OF RS.6,31,16,717/-. 3. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CO MMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) AND PARTLY SUCCEEDED AS LD. COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX(A) ALLOWED ASSESSEES CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 10 A OF THE ACT BY FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF HON. JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SAURASHTRA CEMENT AND CHEMICALS INDUSTRIES LTD.123 ITR 669 AND LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) PARTLY ALLOWED TH E GROUND RAISED BY ASSESSEE U/S 14A OF THE ACT. ITA NO. 711 & 712/AHD/2014 ASST. YEAR 2008-09 & 2009-10 3 4. AGGRIEVED, REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE THE T RIBUNAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.11,97,44,182/- MADE U/S 10A OF THE A CT. 5. LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE VEHEMENTLY ARGUE D AND SUBMITTED THAT REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED SIMILAR ISSUE FOR EARLIER YEARS BEFORE HON. GUJARAT HIGH COURT. SHE ACCEPTED THE FA CT THAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE CO-ORDINATE BENCH HAVE DECIDED THE ISSUE AGAINST THE REVENUE FOR ASST. YEAR 2003-04 TO 2007- 08. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL IS SQUARELY COVERED I N FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE BY THE JUDGMENT OF HON. JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT I N THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. SAURASHTRA CEMENT & CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES LTD. (SUPRA) AND ALSO THE DECISION OF TH E TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR PREVIOUS YEARS. LD. AUTHORI SED REPRESENTATIVE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT DURING ASST. YEAR 2004-05 TO 2007-08 EXEMPTION WAS CLAIMED U/S 10B OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF NEWLY ESTABLISHED 100% EXPORT ORIENTED UNDERTAKING AND ASSESSEE SUCCEEDED IN GETTING ITS CLAIM CONFIRMED BY THE TRI BUNALS ORDER. DURING ASST. YEAR 2008-09 ASSESSEE CAME TO KNOW THA T AS THE ASSESSEE IS A REGISTERED EXPORT ORIENTED UNDERTAKIN G WITH SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY PARK OF INDIA, EXEMPTION OF PROFITS WAS AVAILABLE U/S 10A OF THE ACT WHEREAS IN THE PREVIOUS YEARS IT WAS CLA IMED U/S 10B OF THE ACT AND, THEREFORE, FORM 56A R.W.S. 10A WAS REQUIRE D TO BE SUBMITTED AND NOT THE FORM 56G R.W.S. 10B. LD. AUTHORISED REP RESENTATIVE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO DISPUTE OF THE FACT THAT BUSINESS OF THE ITA NO. 711 & 712/AHD/2014 ASST. YEAR 2008-09 & 2009-10 4 ASSESSEE COMPANY IS 100% EXPORT ORIENTED UNIT AND D EDUCTION OF PROFITS IS ELIGIBLE IN BOTH THE SECTIONS 10A AND 10 B OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, LD. ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED ASSESSMENT OR DER FOR ASST. YEAR 2008-09 AND 2009-10 MECHANICALLY FOLLOWING THE REASONS IN EARLIER YEARS GIVEN IN ASST. YEAR 2003-04 WITHOUT C ONSIDERING ITS APPLICABILITY IN ASST. YEAR 2008-09 & 2009-10. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD PLACED BEFORE US. IN REVENUES APPEAL FOR ASST. YEA R 2008-09 & 2009-10 THE SOLE GRIEVANCE IS AGAINST THE LD. COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A)S ORDER ALLOWING EXEMPTION U/S 10A OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE. WE OBSERVE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSE SSMENT PROCEEDINGS LD. ASSESSING OFFICER DENIED EXEMPTION U/S 10A OF THE ACT BY FOLLOWING HIS PREDECESSORS ORDER IN PREVIOU S ASST. YEAR 2004- 05 AND IGNORING THE FACT THAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CAS E THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH HAS CONFIRMED THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A)S ORDER ALLOWING ASSESSEES CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 10B OF T HE ACT FOR ASST. YEAR 2003-04 TO 2007-08. WE FURTHER OBSERVE THAT LD . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) HAS ALLOWED ASSESSEES APPEAL ELA BORATELY DISCUSSING THE FACTS AND FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF HON. JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SAURASHTRA CEMENT & CHEMI CALS INDUSTRIES LTD. (SUPRA) BY OBSERVING AS FOLLOWS :- 4.3 DECISION: I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT COMPANY IS IN THE BUSINESS OF SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY REL ATED SERVICES. IT IS A HUNDRED PERCENT EXPORT ORIENTED UNIT REGISTERED IN SOFTWARETECHNOLOGY PARK ITA NO. 711 & 712/AHD/2014 ASST. YEAR 2008-09 & 2009-10 5 APPROVED BY THE MINISTRY OF INDUSTRIES. THE COMPANY STARTED ITS BUSINESS DURING FINANCIAL YEAR 2002 - 03 AND STARTED CLAIMING DEDUC TION UNDER SECTION 10 B OF THE ACT. IT CLAIMED THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10 A UP TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 SINCE THEN. DURING THE FIRST ASSESSMENT YEAR I.E .2003 - 04 THE DEDUCTION WAS DISALLOWED AS IT WAS HELD BY THE AO THAT THE RATIO OF OLD PLANT AND MACHINERY UTILISED IN THE BUSINESS WAS MORE THAN 20%. THE APP ELLANT WON IN APPEAL BEFORE ITAT AHMEDABAD AND IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS THE CLAIM WA S DISALLOWED BY AO BUT IT WAS ALLOWED BY ITAT UP TO A. Y 2007 -08. SUBSEQUENTLY, SINCE THE APPELLANT WAS WORKING IN ST P IT MADE A CLAIM UNDER SECTION 10 A FOR A.Y 2008 - 09 AND 2009 - 10. THE A O DISALLOWED THE CLAIM BY FOLLOWING THE EARLIER YEARS PRACTICE OF DISALLOWANC E. HOWEVER, HE MADE THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10 B. THE APPELLANT IS IN APPEAL BEFORE ME AGAINST SUCH D ISALLOWANCE. IT HAS RAISED ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL WHICH WERE DULY FORWAR DED TO THE AO AND HIS COMMENTS HAVE ALSO BEEN OBTAINED. THE APPELLANT, IN THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS HAS SUBMITTED THAT IN CASE THE CLAIM IS NOT HELD TO BE ADMISSIBLE UNDER SECTION 10 A IT MAY BE ALLOWED EITHER UNDER SECTION 10 A OR 10 B AS ALLOWED IN EARLIER YEARS UP TO A.Y 2007 - 08 BY ITAT. IT HAS ALSO SUBMITTED PRE SCRIBED FOR NO. 56F FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10 A AND 56G FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10 B, IN THE REPORT THE AO HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE DEDUCTI ON UNDER SECTION 10 B CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO THE APPELLANT AS THE APPELLANT HAS NO T FURNISHED THE PRESCRIBED FORM ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME AND IT WAS THE DUTY OF THE APPELLANT TO FOLLOW THE PROVISIONS OF THE SECTION WHICH HE FAILED TO DO . HE HAS ALSO REPORTED THAT THE CLAIM UNDER SECTION 10A OF THE ACT CANNOT BE ALLOWE D AS THE REPORT FURNISHED UNDER SECTION 10 A IN FORM 56F IS NOT CORRECT. IT H AS BEEN MENTIONED THAT IN POINT 8 OF THE REPORT, THE APPELLANT MENTIONED THAT IT WA S EIGHTH YEAR OF DEDUCTION WHEREAS AS PER THE APPELLANT'S OWN SUBMISSION AND E ARLIER RECORD IT WAS EVIDENT THAT IT WAS THE FIRST YEAR OF DEDUCTION. EARLIER TH E APPELLANT WAS CLAIMING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10 B AND NOW IT HAS SWITCHE D FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10 A. THE APPELLANT HAS NOT ESTABLISHED FIR ST YEAR OF CLAIM. HE HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE JUDGEMENT OF HONOURABLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF REGENCY CREATIONS 27 TAXMAN.COM 322. THE FIRST ISSUE TO BE DECIDED IS WHETHER THE ADDITI ONAL GROUNDS RAISED BY THE APPELLANT ARE ADMISSIBLE OR NOT. IN MY CONSIDERED O PINION THE GROUNDS ADMISSIBLE AS THERE IS NO NEW FACT WHICH HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON R ECORD. THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT UNDER SECTION 10 A OR 10 B IS LEGAL IN NA TURE AND IS ALSO BONA FIDE. IT IS A KNOWN FACT THAT THERE IS SOME CONFUSION REGARDING THE CLAIMS UNDER SECTION 10 A AND 10B AND THERE IS CONSIDERABLE LITIGATION IN I TAT AND HIGH COURT ON THE ISSUE. MANY CONDITIONS IN SECTION 10 A AND 10B ARE OVERLAPPING. HONOURABLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF THE PRUFHVI BROKER S AND SHAREHOLDERS PRIVATE LIMITED 349 ITR 336 HAS HELD THAT THE APPELLANT AUT HORITIES HAVE POWER TO CONSIDER CLAIMS NOT MADE IN RETURN OF INCOME PROVID ED THE CLAIMS ARE OF BONA ITA NO. 711 & 712/AHD/2014 ASST. YEAR 2008-09 & 2009-10 6 FIDE NATURE. ALL THE INFORMATION WHICH HAS NOW BEEN GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT IN THE REVISED CLAIM AND THE NEW REPORT IN FORM 56G WAS TH ERE ON RECORDS EARLIER ALSO. IT IS ONLY TO CHANGE OF SECTION., WHICH HAS BEEN MADE BY THE APPELLANT. THEREFORE, THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED BY THE APPEL LANT ARE ADMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION. THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE AO IN THE REPORT ARE F IRST TAKEN UP FOR EXAMINATION. THE AO HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLAN T U/S 10 B SHOULD NOT BE ADMITTED AS THE APPELLANT HAS NOT FURNISHED FORM 56 G WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME. IN THIS CONNECTION IT IS NOTED THAT. IN THIS CONNEC TION IT IS NOTED THAT ASSESSEE MADE CLAIM U/S 10A. THE CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED BY THE AO ON THE GROUND THAT IN EARLIER YEARS THE CLAIM UNDER SECTION 10 B WAS DISA LLOWED. THE APPELLANT, THEREFORE, MADE AN ALTERNATIVE CLAIM UNDER SECTION 10 B BY FILING ADDITIONAL GROUND IN THE APPEAL. AS HAS BEEN DISCUSSED BY RNE IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS THAT THE CLAIM ISU ADMISSIBLE AS IT WAS BONA FIDE A ND NO NEW FACTS ARE BEING BROUGHT ON RECORD. FURTHER THERE ARE SEVERAL JUDICI AL PRONOUNCEMENTS WHICH HOLD THAT THE REPORT OF THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT CAN BE FILED EVEN DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE, THE OBJECTION RA ISED BY THE AO IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. THE AO HAS ALSO OBJECTED TO THE ALLOWANCE OF CLAIM UNDER SECTION 10A ON THE GROUND THAT IN FORM NUMBER 56F THE APPELLANT HAS ME NTIONED THAT IT WAS THE EIGHTH YEAR OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION WHERE AS IT WAS F OR THE FIRST YEAR, THE DEDUCTION WAS THE CLAIMED UNDER SECTION 10 A . THE CLAIM OF T HE AO IS NOT ACCEPTABLE AS IT IS NOT THE FIRST YEAR OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION BY THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN CLAIMING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10 B IN THE EARLIE R YEARS WHICH WAS ALLOWED BY THE ORDERS OF ITAT . THE CONDITIONS WHICH ARE TO BE SEEN BEFORE ALLOWING THE CLAIM UNDER SECTION 10 A ARE, FIRST OF ALL, WHETHER THE ACTIVITY OF PRODUCTION HAS COMMENCED IN STP BEFORE A PARTICULAR YEAR. THE OTHE R CONDITIONS WHICH ARE TO BE EXAMINED ARE REGARDING THE FORMATION OF UNDERTAKING WHETHER IT IS A NEW UNDERTAKING OR FORMED BY SPLITTING UP OF AN EXISTIN G UNIT. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ISSUE, OF FORMATION OF UNDERTAKING HAS BEEN EXAMINE D IN THE EARLIER YEARS AND HAS BEEN HELD TO BE VALID FORMATION. THE EARLIER OB JECTION OF HAVING MORE THAN 20% OLD PLANT AND MACHINERY HAS ALSO BEEN EXAMINED BY ITAT AND IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE DISALLOWANCE WAS NOT PROPER. FURTHER, THE APPELLANT HAS RIGHTLY WRITTEN IN FORM 56F THAT IT WAS THE EIGHTH YEAR OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION. APPELLANT IS NOT MAKING THE CLAIM FOR THE NEXT 10 YEARS. EVEN TH E JUDGEMENT MENTIONED BY THE AO IN ITS REPORT IN THE CASE OF SAMI LABS LTD. 334 ITR 157 (KARNATAK HIGH COURT) HOLDS THAT THE STARTING POINT FOR LIMITATION FOR CL AIMING BENEFIT U/S.L0B WOULD COMMENCE FROM THE YEAR OF MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCTION OF UNDERTAKING. THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT BE LIABLE TO CLAIM SUCH DEDUCTIO N IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS UNLESS SAID INITIAL TEST ON DATE OF STARTING POINT OF LIMITATION HAS BE EN SATISFIED. THE APPELLANT CLAIMED DEDUCTION FOR THE FIRST TIME UNDE R SECTION 10 B FOR A.Y 2002 - 03. THE APPELLANT IS NOT MAKING THE CLAIM FOR THE F IRST TIME. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THE SETUP OF THE APPELLANT CO MPANY IT IS THE SAME WHICH CLAIMED THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10 B FOR THE FI RST TIME FOR A.Y 2002- 03. IT ITA NO. 711 & 712/AHD/2014 ASST. YEAR 2008-09 & 2009-10 7 HAS BEEN HELD BY HONOURABLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN TH E CASE OF NAGESH CHUNDUR VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -XV, CHENNAI REPORTED IN 39 TAXMAN.COM 190 THAT IN ORDER TO CLAIM DEDUCTION, UNDER SECTI ON 10A, TWIN CONDITIONS ARE THAT AN UNDERTAKING IN HARDWARE J TECHNOLOGY PARK OR SOF TWARE TECHNOLOGY PARK MUST BE IN EXISTENCE COMMENCING ITS PRODUCTION ON OR AF TER 1-4-1994 AND IT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN I FORMED BY SPLITTING UP OR RECONSTRUCTIO N OF AN EXISTING BUSINESS. IN THE PRESENT J CASE THE APPELLANT IS SATISFYING BOTH THE CONDITIONS AND THERE IS NO REASON WHY J IT SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10 A. THE AO HAS RELIED ON THE JUDGEMENT OF HONOURABLE DE LHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF REGENCY CREATIONS. THE JUDGEMENT IS NOT APPLIC ABLE TO THE PRESENT FACTS OF THE CASE AS IN THAT CASE THE APPELLANT HAD CLAIMED .DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10 B. WHEREAS IT WAS ENTITLED.LOR DEDUCTION UNDER S ECTION 10 A. THE HONOURABLE COURT HELD THAT IF THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED FOR DE DUCTION IN A PARTICULAR SECTION IT CANNOT BE ALLOWED THE DEDUCTION UNDER THE OTHER SEC TION. HOWEVER, WHILE DECIDING THE MA ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER IN THE CAS E OF REGENCY CREATIONS (SUPRA ) THE HONOURABLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN ITA NO. 439 /2 012 IN THE CASE OF VALIANT COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED HAS HELD THAT THAT THE ALTER NATIVE CLAIM UNDER SECTION 10 A SHOULD BE EXAMINED ON MERITS IF ASSESSEE WAS NOT HELD ENTITLED TO THE BENEFITS OF SEC.10B OF THE ACT BUT TO A RIGHT CLAIM UNDER SE CTION 10 A THEREFORE, THERE IS NO REASON THE CLAIM SHOULD BE ALLOWED. THE ONLY OBJECT ION CAN BE THAT THE APPELLANT WOULD NOT GET THE DEDUCTION FOR FURTHER 10 YEARS FR OM THE YEAR OF FIRST CLAIM. THE APPELLANT HAS ITSELF SHOWN IN THE RELEVANT FORM THA T IT WAS THE EIGHTH YEAR OF CLAIM AND ACCORDINGLY THE INTENTION OF THE APPELLANT IS N OT TO CLAIM THE DEDUCTION FOR FURTHER 10 YEARS . EVEN OTHERWISE THE APPELLANT WOU LD NOT BE ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION FOR 10 YEARS AS IT HAS ALREADY MADE THE C LAIM UNDER SECTION 10B FOR INITIAL EIGHT YEARS. THE APPELLANT ON THE OTHER HAND HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON CERTAIN DECISIONS WHICH ARE RELATED TO GRANT OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10 A. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT KEEPING IN VIEW THE DECISION OF HONO URABLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN CASE OF SAURASHTRA CEMENT AND CHEMICALS INDUSTRIES LTD 123ITR669 IT SHOULD BE ALLOWED THE DEDUCTION ON THE FACT THAT ONCE THE DED UCTION HAS BEEN ALLOWED IN THE FIRST YEAR OF OPERATION IT CANNOT BE DENIED IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR. AS HAS BEEN DISCUSSED IN THE PRECEDING DISCUSSION THE APPE LLANT SATISFIES ALL THE CONDITIONS AND IS ACCORDINGLY ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTIO N UNDER SECTION 10 A. IT HAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT IT SATISFIES ALL THE CONDITIONS RELATED TO THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10A AND ACCORDINGLY THE SAME SHOULD B E ALLOWED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION I AM OF THE CONSIDE RED OPINION THAT THE APPELLANT IS ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10 A, WHICH HAS BEEN RIGHTLY CLAIMED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. ITA NO. 711 & 712/AHD/2014 ASST. YEAR 2008-09 & 2009-10 8 THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS RAISED BY THE APPELLANT HAVE ALSO BEEN EXAMINED AND IT IS NOTED THAT SINCE THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT UNDER S ECTION 10 A HAS BEEN ALLOWED, THERE IS NO NEED TO DECIDE THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS.T HE APPELLANT IS ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10A AS IT IS A UNIT REGISTE RED UNDER STP AND IT FULFILS ALL THE CONDITIONS PRESCRIBED IN THE SECTION. IN MY CON SIDERED OPINION THE GROUNDS NOW RAISED BY THE APPELLANT ARE OF ACADEMIC NATURE AND THEREFORE, NEED NOT BE DECIDED. EVEN OTHERWISE THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT UNDER SECTION 10B HAS TO BE ALLOWED BY FOLLOWING THE RULES OF CONSISTENCY AND T HE FACT THAT THE ISSUE HAS BEEN SETTLED BY THE ORDERS OF THE ITAT AHMEDABAD IN EARL IER YEARS. 8. WE FURTHER OBSERVE THAT LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESE NTATIVE COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE FACT THAT THE ISSUE RAISED IN TH ESE APPEALS IA SQUARELY COVERED BY THE JUDGMENT OF HON. JURISDICTI ONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SAURASHTRA CEMENT & CHEMICALS INDUS. LT D. (SUPRA) RELIED ON BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A). IN THE GIVEN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWIN G THE JUDGMENT OF HON. JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SAURA SHTRA CEMENT & CHEMICALS INDUS. LTD. (SUPRA) AND THE ASSESSEE FAVO RING DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN PREVIOUS ASST. YEARS AND A LSO IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS THAT ASSESSEE HAS FULFILLED ALL THE ELIGI BILITY CRITERIA FOR CLAIMING EXEMPTION U/S 10A OF THE ACT, WE FIND NO R EASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) . WE UPHOLD THE SAME. ACCORDINGLY, BOTH THE APPEALS OF REVENUE FOR ASST. YEARS 2008-09 AND 2009-10 ARE DISMISSED. ITA NO. 711 & 712/AHD/2014 ASST. YEAR 2008-09 & 2009-10 9 9. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF REVENUE ARE D ISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14 TH MARCH, 2017 SD/- SD/- (S. S. GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER (MANISH BORAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED 14/03/2017 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 1. DATE OF DICTATION: 10/03/2017 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE T HE DICTATING MEMBER: 10/03/2017 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: 14/3/17 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: