Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2014 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (9) TMI 1249 - AT - Income TaxDeduction u/s 80IB - sale of scrap was eligible for the deduction u/s. 80IB for the Pimpri Unit-II and Goa unit of the assessee company - AO disallowed the claim of the assessee for deduction u/s. 80IB in respect of the Pimpri Unit-II holding that the said Unit was not a new independent undertaking - HELD THAT:- It was the common point between the parties that the issue relating to eligibility of sale of scrap for Sec. 80IB benefits is no longer res-integra but has been decided by the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for assessment year 2002-03 [2011 (7) TMI 1153 - ITAT PUNE] in favour of the assessee. It was also a common point between the parties that the said precedent continues to hold the field as it has not been altered by any higher authority. In view of the aforesaid precedent we uphold the stand of the CIT(A) and as a result the Grounds of appeal nos. 1 and 2 raised by the Revenue stand dismissed. Pre-payment of deferred sales tax loan liability - assessee has availed of the deferred sales tax scheme of the Govt. of Maharashtra in earlier years - HELD THAT:- Ostensibly, the issue which was raised by the assessee for the first time before the CIT(A) involved a point of law and the necessary facts to adjudicate the same, were already on record. In other words, the adjudication of the new claim sought to be raised by the assessee for the first time before the CIT(A) did not require any fresh investigation of facts. Therefore, in terms of the judgment in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd [1996 (12) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT] the CIT(A) made no mistake in admitting such Additional Ground of appeal. It is pertinent to note that before adjudicating on the Additional Ground of appeal, the CIT(A) duly called for the comments of the Assessing Officer, and only after considering the comments, he has admitted the additional Grounds of Appeal for all the above reasons, the action of the CIT(A) is hereby affirmed. In so far as the merits of the claim is concerned, it was a common point between the parties that the controversy is to be adjudicated in the light of the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sulzer India Limited [2010 (11) TMI 728 - ITAT, MUMBAI] - Decided against revenue.
|