ORDER 1. The Revenue has preferred this appeal against the order passed by the Tribunal that the beneficial Clause of 10 years brought it in by way of amendment to Section 10A is applicable to the case of assessee also. The substantial question of law involved in this appeal was the subject matter in the case of CIT v. DSL Software Ltd. [2012] 205 Taxman 48/18 taxamnn.com 151 (Kar.) (Mag.) decided on 12.10.2011 by this Court where it was held as under: 6. It is not in dispute that Section 10B prior to amendment granted a tax holiday for a period of 5 years from the date of commencement of production out of a band of 8 years. The section was amended by Income Tax (Second Amendment) Act, 1998 which came into effect from 01.04.1999. The amended provision reads as under:- 10B. Special provisions in respect of newly established hundred percent export oriented undertakings - (1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a deduction of such profits and gains are derived by a hundred percent export-oriented undertaking from the export of articles or things or computer software for a period of ten consecutive assessment years beginning with the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the undertaking begins to manufacture or produce articles or things or computer software, as the case may be, shall be allowed from the total income of the assessee: Provided that where in computing the total income of the undertaking for any assessment year, its profits and gains had not been included by application of the provisions of this section as it stood immediately before its substitution by the Act 10 of 2000, the undertaking shall be entitled to the deduction referred in this sub-section only for the unexpired period of aforesaid ten consecutive assessment years: **** 7. As it is dear from the aforesaid provision, the tax benefit or tax holiday is now extended for a period of ten consecutive assessment yews beginning with the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the said undertaking begins to manufacture or produce articles or things or computer software, as the case may be. The object behind this amendment, which is extracted in the order of the Appellate Tribunal reads as under:- Clause 3 seeks to amend section 10A of the Income Tax Act. The object behind this amendment, which is extracted in the order of the Appellate Tribunal reads as under:- Clause 3 seeks to amend section 10A of the Income Tax Act. Under the existing provisions, tax holiday is available to newly established industrial undertaking set up in free trade zones and to units set up in software technology parks for five years out of the block of initial eight years, subject to fulfillment of certain conditions. The proposed amendment seeks to extend the period of tax holiday from five years to ten years in order to give added thrust to exports. Clause-4 seeks to similarly extend the five year tax holiday period to ten years to the export oriented units under section 10B of the Income-tax Act. 8. From the aforesaid object behind the amendment, it is dear that the period of 5 years is extended to 10 years in order to give added thrust to exports. It is because the Parliament felt that the tax holiday of 5 years is not having the desired result and therefore, they extended the benefit of tax holiday from 5 years to 10 years. If it is a case of extension from 5 years to 10 years, the unit which had the benefit of 5 years automatically, should get the benefit of 10 years if other conditions are fulfilled. The other condition to be fulfilled is ten consecutive assessment years beginning with the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the undertaking begins to manufacture. Therefore, the object with which this amendment was introduced is to extend the benefit of tax holiday for a period of 10 consecutive years from the date of commencement of manufacture or production. Before an assessee can claim the benefit of tax holiday, the said tow governing the tax holiday should be in force on the first day of the relevant year. Then only he would he entitled to the said benefit. On 1-4-1999 when the amended provision came into force by virtue of said provision the assessee would be entitled to the benefit of tax holiday for 10 consecutive years from the date of production. If the assessee already availed the benefit under the unamended provision and the 10 consecutive years would fall prior to 01.04.1999, then the assessee would not be entitled to the said benefit. If the assessee already availed the benefit under the unamended provision and the 10 consecutive years would fall prior to 01.04.1999, then the assessee would not be entitled to the said benefit. If the said 10 consecutive years from the date of production has not expired, prior to 1-4-1999, far the remaining unexpired period, he would be entitled to the benefit. On the ground that he had the benefit of unamended provision and the 5 years period has expired on the day amended provision came into force, he cannot be denied the benefit. If that is done, it would run counter to the intention with which the amended provision was brought on the statute book, it would negate the amended provision. 9. In the instant case, the assessee has commenced production in the year 1993-94. He enjoyed the benefit of 5 years from 1993-94 to 1997-98. The amended provision came into force on 1-4-1999. He is entitled to the tax holiday under the amended provision i.e. from 1999-2000, the benefit from 1999-2000, 2000-01 and 2001-02. It is for the period 2001-02, the benefit is denied. The said denial of the benefit runs canteen to the sprit of Section 10B and it would negate the object with which the amended provision was brought in. The assessee is entitled to the benefit of extension from 5 years to 10 years tax holiday as provided under the amended provision for 10 consecutive years from the date of commencement of production. In that view of the matter the order passed by the Tribunal as well as the First Appellate Authority is strictly in accordance with law and do not suffer from any legal infirmity, which calls for interference. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. 2. In view of the judgment referred supra, this appeal is also dismissed.