INCOME TAX OFFICER-6(3)-2, MUMBAI Vs. M/S. ACCENTIA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Income Tax Officer -6(3) -2, Mumbai
M/S. Accentia Technologies Ltd.
Click here to view full judgement.
D.Manmohan, Vice President -
(1.) THIS appeal is filed at the instance of the Revenue and it pertains to A.Y. 2007 -08.
(2.) THE following grounds were urged by the Revenue: -
1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to allow the assessee's claim u/s. 10A, without appreciating the fact that the claim was not made in the original return of income, nor was a revised return filed.
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not taking into consideration the amendment to Section 80A(5) and the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of M/s. Goetze (India) Ltd., : 284 ITR 323.
Though notice was sent to the assessee by RPAD none appeared on behalf of the assessee. We, therefore, proceed to dispose of the appeal on merits exparte, qua assessee.
(3.) WE have heard the learned D.R. in this regard and carefully perused the record. The undisputed facts of the case are stated in brief. The assessee is engaged in the business of medical transcription. It filed return of income electronically on 24.07.2007 declaring Nil income. The net profit as per the P & L Account has been shown at Rs. 6,67,71,702/ -. After making certain disallowance the AO arrived at the total income at Rs. 7,19,06,530/ -. Against this income the assessee company claimed deduction of Rs. 7,12,12,028/ - under section 10B of the Act by claiming that it was a 100% export oriented unit and the income earned therefrom is not assessable to tax. The AO observed that the assessee is required to obtain a certificate in Form No. 56G to be eligible to claim the deduction. Neither the certificate nor any other evidence was submitted to establish the claim and hence the claim of deduction was rejected.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.