Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.28 seconds)

The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Regency Creations Ltd. on 17 September, 2012

Development Commissioner had vide its order dated 19.03.2007 recognized the assessee as 100% EOU. Contention of the ld. Authorised Representative was that this was reaffirmed through an order dated 10.06.2012. As per the ld. Authorised Representative in the letter dated 27.03.2014 from Development Commissioner of MEPZ, Chennai, it was clearly stated that approval given by the Development Commissioner of MEPZ/SEZ on 09.03.2007, stood ratified by the Board of Approval of EOU scheme, in its meeting held on 25.03.2011. Contention of the ld.AR was that CBDT Instruction No.2/2009, dated 09.03.2009 read alongwith Corrigendum to the said instruction issued on 08.05.2009 clearly validated approvals given by the Development Commissioner as 100% EOU, once it was ratified by Board of Approval for EOU scheme, for the purpose of claiming exemption u/s.10B of the Act. Despite this as per the ld. Authorised Representative, ld. Assessing Officer in the fresh assessment, pursuant to the directions of the Tribunal, held the assessee as not eligible for claiming deduction u/s.10B of the Act. As per the ld. Authorised Representative, ld. Assessing Officer had relied on a judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Regency Creations Ltd, 353 ITR 326 for taking a view that there was no official document authorizing any officer or agency to perform the duties of the Board constituted u/s.14 of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951.
Delhi High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 52 - S R Bhat - Full Document
1