TMI Blog2011 (12) TMI 560X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owance made of ₹ 2,65,12,176/-made on account of disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB of the Act. by denying the deduction U/s. 80IB of the I.T.Act. 3. Brief facts till the assessment stage on this issue are noted by Ld. CIT(A) in para 5-5.2 of his order which are reproduced below: 5. In ground no. 1 to 3 the appellant has raised its contention that the assessing officer has erred in not allowing deduction U/s. 801B on the ground that the appellant has filed its return of income after the time limit specified U/s. 139(1) of the Act. 5.1 I have perused the facts of the case. The appellant has filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 20.12.2006 which according to the assessing officer is after due date spe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e observation of the assessing officer is reproduced from the assessment order as under- The assessee 's submission is perused and is not tenable as the circular quoted is perused carefully and there is no mention of extension of filing of return for the assesses of Daman The extension of filing return of income is applicable to the assessee from Gujarat only. Daman a Union Territory is a separate entity and income tax office is situated at Daman and factory of the assessee has also been set up in Daman itself. The ' board has not extended due dale in Daman. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who has held that in his opinion, the assessee can be considered as income tax assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity of the Tribunal decision cited by the assessee. We find that in that case also, assessee was assessed by the ITO Wapi Ward 4, Daman as in the present case. In that case also, the return of income was filed by the assessee on 01.12.2006 and it was the case of the A.O. that the same is beyond the due date specified u/s 139(1) of the Income tax Act, 1961 and, therefore, the assessee is not eligible for deduction u/s 80-IB of the Act. Hence, it is seen that facts are identical in both the cases. In that case, the issue in dispute was decided by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee and the relevant para of the Tribunal decision is para 7 which is reproduced below: We have considered the rival submissions and we do not find merit in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is also designated as income Tax Officer, Vapi, Ward-4, Daman. The contention of the assessee, is therefore, correct that for all purposes the assessee is assessed at Vapi (State of Gujarat). The jurisdiction of the assessing authority at Daman and concurrently at Vapi which admittedly falls in the jurisdiction of State of Gujarat as noted above. For all practical intent and purposes the cases of Daman falls in the jurisdiction of Vapi and Valsad. Therefore, the assessee is rightly held to be assessed within the jurisdiction of State of Gujarat. Thus, the circular of CBDT applies to the case of the assessee also. The learned CIT(A) on proper appreciation of the facts and CBDT Circular and the beneficial provisions extended to the assessee, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal decision rendered in the case of Ramesh Industries Vs ITO rendered in I.T.A.No. 3131/Ahd/2008 dated 21.01.2011 wherein it was held that the assessee is entitled for deduction u/s 80-IB on the enhanced income after making disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia). He submitted a copy of this Tribunal decision. 11. We have considered the rival submissions, perused the material on record and have gone through the orders of authorities below and the tribunal decision cited by the Ld. A.R. of the assessee. We find that this issue has been decided by the tribunal at para 10 of the Tribunal order, which is reproduced below: 10. We have heard the parties and carefully perused the materi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
