Assessing Officer\u00a0 denied benefit of exemption under section 10B on ground that assessee was not approved by concerned statutory Board as a hundred per cent export oriented undertaking as required under Explanation to section 10B of the Act. Commissioner (Appeals) allowed appeal.\u00a0 On revenue’s appeal, Tribunal referred\u00a0 that an agreement was entered into between assessee and Central Government wherein there was a reference to a resolution passed by Ministry of Commerce granting status of hundred per cent export oriented unit to assessee. Further CBDT had issued a clarification dated 9-3-2009 to effect that power to grant approval under section 14 of Industrial (Development & Regulation) Act, 1951 had been delegated to Development Commissioner and approval granted by Development Commissioner shall be considered valid for purpose of exemption under section 10B. Affirmed the order of CIT(A). On appeal High Court affirmed the order of Tribunal.\u00a0\u00a0 The\u00a0 assessee had not claimed exemption under section 10A in its return of income, however, Tribunal\u00a0 after\u00a0 examining the\u00a0 factual matrix and pointed out similarities between section 10A and section 10B and after taking note of legal position came to conclusion that assessee was entitled to relief under section 10B and was also entitled for benefit of exemption under section 10A of the Act. Tribunal also held.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 revenue cannot take advantage of assessee’s mistake in not claiming exemption in return of income, thereby denying exemption. On appeal High Court affirmed the order of Tribunal. (AY. 2007-08, 2008-09)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
S. 10B: Export oriented undertakings-Agreement with Central Government-Ministry of Commerce granting hundred percent export oriented unit-Entitle to exemption-Exemption cannot be denied merely on the ground that the assessee has not claimed exemption in return of income. [S. 10A, 139, Industrial (Development & Regulation) Act, 1951 S. 14] <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-29221","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-7Bj","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29221","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=29221"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29221\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":32489,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29221\/revisions\/32489"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=29221"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=29221"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=29221"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}