Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - 2 v. Mednautix Outsourcing Pvt. Ltd =============================================================

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL No. 411 of 2018 With R/TAX APPEAL No. 412 of 2018 =============================================================PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 2VersusMEDNAUTIX OUTSOURCING PVT. LTD============================================================= Appearance :Mr M.R BHATT, Sr Advocate with Mrs MAUNA M BHATT, Advocate for the PETITIONER============================================================= CORAM: HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE AKIL KURESHIandHONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE B.N. KARIA30[th] April 2018 COMMON ORDER(PER : HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) These Appeals are filed by the Revenue challenging the common judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad dated 5[th] September 2017 [“the Tribunal” for short]. The question framed by the revenue does not bring out the correct controversy, however, we have gathered from the documents on record and counsel for the revenue that the question arising in these appeals is - “Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal committed an error in accepting the assessee’s claim of deduction under Section 10B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?” T.his question arises in the following background For the assessment year 2010-2011, the assessee had filed return of income in which the assessee had claimed deduction of Rs. 97.65 lakhs [rounded off] under Section 10B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act” for short]. The Assessing Officer did not accept such a claim since the assessee failed to produce the approval granted by the Board of Approval for registration as a EOU. In appeal, CIT [A] did not disturb this finding, but held that the assessee did qualify for deduction under Section 10A of the Act, and accordingly, granted partial relief. Both the sides were aggrieved by this order of CIT [A] which gave rise to two cross appeals before the Tribunal. Before the Tribunal, the assessee produced belated approval granted by the Board and contended that it was not within the control of the assessee when such approval may be granted. The Tribunal accepted assessee’s contention and granted deduction under Section 10B of the Act. In view of the fact that approval was produced before the Tribunal, even the Tribunal, in view of such approval has granted deduction under Section 10B of the Act, we see no reason to interfere. Tax Appeals are dismissed. [Akil Kureshi, J.] [B.N Karia, J.]