Sec. 10AA of Income Tax Act, 1961— Deduction --- Revenue filed appeal against the order of CIT(A). The assessee, the unit 186/B was initially set up and manufacturing activity commenced by the proprietor namely Mr. Albert Kallati, which was then taken over by partnership firm namely Lorey Jewel wherein the partners were Mr. Albert Kallati and his daughter Ms. Leout Kallati. The nature of business carried out from the unit remain same i.e. manufacture and export of stuffed gold and diamond jewellery. Therefore, the assessee has rightly claimed the deduction under section 10AA of the Act and merely because there was change in constitution, the same does not debar the assessee from claiming deduction u/s.l0AA of the Act. The next question which arises is whether a separate approval is required from SEZ authorities for claiming deduction u/s. l0AA of the Act. There is no such provision in section 10AA of the Act, therefore, the assessee was eligible for claim of deduction u/s. l0AA of the Act. The AO has been given opportunity for verifying the same which has subsequently been verified and the same have been found to be in order. Hence, the ground taken by the AO in the assessment order for denying the claim of deduction u/s. l0AA of the Act does not survive anymore. Against the above order the Revenue was in appeals before Tribunal. Grounds for relief were that deduction is undertaking (unit) specific and the same could not be denied on the ground that undertaking has a new owner.
Tribunal considered opinion issue raised by the Revenue was covered against the Revenue, Tribunal upheld the order of CIT(A). Appeals by the Revenue stand dismissed. --- ITO vs. LOREY JEWEL. [2020] 23 ITCD Online 70 (MUM)