JUDGMENT judgment of court was delivered by R. Sudhakar J.-This tax case (appeal) filed by Revenue as against order of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for assessment year 2005-06 was admitted by this court on following substantial question of law: "Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal was right in holding that registration with STPI is not pre-requisite for grant of deduction under section 10B of Incometax Act, 1961?" brief facts are as follows: respondent-assessee is company engaged in software development. assessee-company was incorporated on December 19, 2003, and started business operations from January, 2004. assessee prepared accounts for period December 19, 2003, to March 31, 2005. For first time, for assessment year 2005-06, assessee claimed deduction under section 10B of Income-tax Act and filed return of income declaring total income of Rs. 38,430 on October 19, 2005. said return was processed under section 143(1) of Income-tax Act on March 18, 2006, and, subsequently, case was taken up for scrutiny. Assessing Officer, while dealing with claim of deduction under section 10B of Income-tax Act, found that assessee had applied for registration as 100 per cent. economic oriented undertaking to Software Technology Parks of India (STPI) on March 24, 2005, and obtained approval only in May, 2005; hence, as per Circular No. 1 of 2005, dated January 6, 2005 (see  272 ITR (St.) 6), of Central Board of Direct Taxes, assessee was not eligible for benefit under section 10B of Act. Accordingly, Assessing Officer disallowed entire claim of deduction under section 10B of Income-tax Act on ground that assessee had obtained approval from STPI only in May, 2005, which was after end of previous year relevant to assessment year 2005-06. Aggrieved by order of Assessing Officer, assessee preferred appeal before Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who partly allowed appeal holding as follows: "It is settled proposition of law that exemption has to be granted as and from assessment year in which conditions prescribed in section have been satisfied until end of holiday period (CIT v. Gopal Plastics P. Ltd.  215 ITR 136 (Mad)). This view is also supported by decision of hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Textile Machinery Corporation Ltd. v. CIT  107 ITR 195 (SC). In case of appellant it is found that appellant is engaged in manufacturing and export of computer software and has commenced hundred per cent. export of computer software during assessment year 2005-06. 7.2. It will not be out of place here to mention that it is settled proposition often reiterated by hon'ble apex court that in cases where two views are possible, one favourable to assessee should be adopted. CIT v. Podar Cement P. Ltd.  226 ITR 625 (SC) and Mysore Minerals Ltd. v. CIT  239 ITR 775 (SC). 7.3 In view of above facts and in circumstances of case, it is held that appellant has fulfilled all conditions specified under section 10B and has correctly claimed deduction under that section. Assessing Officer, therefore, was not justified in denying claim of deduction, consequently, he is directed to allow same as per claim made by appellant in return of income. This ground of appeal is allowed." Aggrieved by order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Revenue preferred appeal before Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. Tribunal, after referring to provisions under section 10B of Income-tax Act and Explanation to section 10B came to hold that if assessee satisfies below mentioned three conditions they will be granted benefit under section 10B of Income-tax Act: "if assessee-company- (i) manufactures or produces any article or things or computer software mentioned below; (ii) was not formed by splitting up, or reconstruction, of business already in existence subject to provisions of section 33B of Act; and (iii) is not formed by transfer to new business of machinery or plant previously used for any purpose." Tribunal also held that there is no pre-condition that assessee company has to obtain registration from STPI before making claim under section 10B of Act; Circular of Central Board of Direct Taxes could not override plain provisions of Act and circulars of Central Board of Direct Taxes were either in nature of clarification or rather explanatory in nature. Tribunal further held that STPI agreement/certificate nowhere mentioned that it was for claiming deduction under section 10B of Act. Tribunal also held "a claim which is allowed by plain provisions of Act cannot be restricted by imposing conditions which cannot be carried out". Tribunal also held that beneficial, promotional and incentive provisions like provisions of section 10B of Act, which was aimed at promoting software industry in India, should be liberally construed and should not be defeated on technical grounds. Tribunal also held that from reading of section 10B of Act, approval or registration under STPI have not been mandatory and same could not be read in different manner and Central Board of Direct Taxes circulars are binding on Department alone. Tribunal relying upon decision of this court reported in CIT v. Gopal Plastics P. Ltd.  215 ITR 136 (Mad) held as follows: "The hon'ble Madras High Court, while deciding case in CIT v. Gopal Plastics P. Ltd.  215 ITR 136 (Mad), has clearly observed that when exemption is granted by any provision of Act, from its very inception, and conditions laid down therein are fully satisfactory until end of holiday period, same has to be allowed. This view has been fortified by hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Textile Machinery Corporation Ltd. v. CIT  107 ITR 195 (SC). In any worst situation, when from analysis of any provision two views are possible, one which favours assessee has to be adopted. In this regard, decision of hon'ble Supreme Court in Mysore Minerals  239 ITR 775 (SC) can be referred to. Hence, claim of assessee correctly fits in jacket formula laid down by section 10B and assessee is entitled to impugned deduction. In our considered opinion, learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has committed no error in directing Assessing Officer to allow claim of assessee made under section 10B of Act. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in grounds of this appeal. Hence we dismiss same." Aggrieved by order of Tribunal, Revenue has preferred present tax case (appeal) raising substantial question of law referred supra. Learned standing counsel appearing for Revenue submits that Explanation 2(iv) of section 10B of Income-tax Act defines 100 per cent. economic oriented undertaking as one approved by Board. ten-year period commences from date of such approval. She further submits that when STPI registration itself was beyond financial year, assessee is not entitled to benefit of exemption prior to date of approval and assessee is entitled to benefit of exemption from next assessment year only. Also circular of Central Board of Direct Taxes is not contrary to statute but it is only clarified position. Hence, order of Tribunal is liable to be set aside and this appeal may be allowed. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for assessee, submits that assessee had fulfilled conditions prescribed under section 10B of Income-tax Act and, hence, eligible for exemption. provision does not make it mandatory that STPI registration should be obtained before making claim under section 10B of Income-tax Act. Hence, Tribunal is correct in granting benefit of exemption under section 10B of Act to assessee. Heard learned standing counsel appearing for Revenue and learned counsel appearing for assessee and perused materials placed before this court. It is seen that respondent-assessee, which is company engaged in software development, has applied for registration as 100 per cent. export oriented unit on March 24, 2005, before competent authority and got approval in May, 2005. assessee claimed benefit of exemption under section 10B of Act, which falls under Chapter IV, for assessment year 2005-06. What is relevant for seeking benefit under section 10B is deduction of profits or gains as are derived by hundred per cent. export oriented undertaking from export of articles or things or computer software for period of ten consecutive assessment years beginning with assessment year relevant to previous year in which undertaking begins to manufacture or produce articles or things or computer software, as case may be, shall be allowed from total income of assessee. Clause (iv) of Explanation 2 to section 10B of Act defines 100 per cent. export oriented unit, which reads as follows: "Explanation 2.-For purposes of this section,-... (iv)'hundred per cent. export-oriented undertaking' means undertaking which has been approved as hundred per cent. export oriented undertaking by Board appointed in this behalf by Central Government in exercise of powers conferred by section 14 of Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 (65 of 1951), and rules made under that Act." reading of above provision makes it clear that 100 per cent. export oriented undertaking as provided under section 10B(1) will be one that is approved by Board appointed in this behalf by Central Government in exercise of powers conferred by section 14 of Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 (65 of 1951), and Rules made under that Act. Admittedly, in this case, such approval was granted during May, 2005, only and, therefore, prior to that date or assessment year, relevant to date of registration, benefit of section 10B would not be available as requirement of approval by competent authority is not available as on date, from which assessee claimed exemption. Hence, we have no hesitation to hold that section 10B is very clear and unambiguous that approval by competent authority is pre-requisite for grant of benefit under section 10B. Hence, it will not be appropriate for Tribunal to hold that there is no pre- condition that assessee should have obtain STPI registration before making claim under section 10B of Income-tax Act. That finding of Tribunal is totally wrong and contrary to provisions of Act. provisions of section 10B of Income-tax Act make it clear that benefit will flow if there is certificate of approval issued by Board appointed in this behalf, namely, STPI. Hence, we find that Tribunal is not justified to hold that claim allowed by provisions of section 10B cannot be restricted by imposing certain conditions. We hold that this finding of Tribunal is totally contrary to clause (iv) of Explanation (2) to section 10B of Income-tax Act. Department, no doubt, clearly states that for next assessment year benefit would automatically flow. We do not find any justification to be swayed by view of Tribunal that promotion of software industry should not be scuttled by technicalities. We are also aware of fact that benefit granted under section 10B is more in nature of exemption, for which certain pre-requisite conditions, namely, approval by appropriate Board, have to be complied with in manner prescribed. Unless and until assessee gets approval in manner prescribed under section 10B, question of granting benefit does not arise. Tribunal's opinion that if there are two views, then view in favour of assessee should be accepted is fully inadmissible on facts of present case. We hold that circular is nothing but clarification of what section 10B really provides for. It is of no avail either to assessee or to Department when provisions of section 10B is clear. It is to be noted that there is no second opinion on facts of ratio decided by this court in case of CIT v. Gopal Plastics P. Ltd.  215 ITR 136 (Mad) that exemption will be available from inception if conditions are fully satisfied, which fact is not available to facts of present case. We hold that assessee in this case will be entitled to benefit of section 10B only on complying with conditions contained prescribed in section 10B of Income-tax Act, and it does not enure to benefit for assessment year in question, namely, 2005-06. decisions relied on by Tribunal have no relevance to facts of present case. We, therefore, hold that question of law raised by Revenue is answered in favour of Revenue and against assessee. Accordingly, order of Tribunal stands set aside and tax case (appeal) stands allowed. No costs. Learned counsel appearing for assessee submits that if there is any material to show that assessee has got approval earlier, assessee may be given liberty to produce same before Assessing Officer for availing of benefit. It is open to assessee to submit certificate of approval, if any, to show that on earlier date, it has obtained approval and seek rectification in accordance with law. *** Commissioner of Income-tax v. Live Connection Software Solutions P. Ltd.