Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2017 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (9) TMI 182 - AT - Income TaxDeduction u/s 80IC declined - no substantial expansion of “Parwanoo unit” - contention of the learned CIT(DR) that the assessee has already been allowed deduction under section 80IB for five years and therefore, it should not be allowed deduction further - Held that:- As decided in assessee's own case the assessee has been able to justify the increase of plant and machinery to the tune of ₹ 18,35,423 (Rs.19,48,888 - ₹ 1,13,465) at Parwanoo unit. We are also in agreement with the conclusion that this amount of increase of plant and machinery during the year under consideration viz. ₹ 18,35,423 is more than 50% of the opening value of the plant and machinery for Parwanoo i.e. ₹ 34,63,220 (as on 1.4.2005) then the claim of expansion of Parwanoo unit was rightly held in favour of the assessee. We also note that the Director of Industries, H.P. also acknowledged the substantial expansion of Parwanoo unit as on 24.11.2005 by the certificate dated 8.2.2006 which has not been controverted by the AO which clarifies that after substantial expansion as on 24.11.2005, the investment in plant and machinery was increased from ₹ 33.32 lakh to ₹ 52.36 lakh during the year under consideration. CIT(A) also granted relief to the assessee for AY 2007-08 by following its order for AY 2006-07 which cannot be said to be an unjust or improper approach rather the CIT(A) rightly followed rule of consistency in the proceedings by following its order for immediately preceding year. As referring to subsection 6 of section 80IC which restricts deduction under section 80IB, section 80IC or section 10C for a total period of 10 years and beyond that no deduction is allowed. The arguments of Ld. CIT(DR) cannot hold ground, and the assessee is eligible for deduction under section 80IC(6) of the Act for at least 5 years. Since both the issues of substantial expansion at ‘Parwanoo’ unit and the activity of the assessee as manufacturing, have already been decided in favour of the assessee by the orders of the Tribunal and no contrary decision of any higher court has been brought to our notice by the learned CIT(DR), respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal in assessee's own case , we find no infirmity in the finding of the learned CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and uphold the same. - Decided against revenue Disallowance u/s 14A on account of exempt income earned u/s 10(33)/10(34)- Held that:- In the case of Joint Investment Ltd Vs. CIT [2015 (3) TMI 155 - DELHI HIGH COURT] is of the view that disallowance under section 14A of the Act should not exceed the exempted income claimed by the assessee. In the present case the assessee has already made disallowance suo motu exceeding the exempted income, therefore, no further disallowance is required and the same made by the Assessing Officer is upheld by the Ld. CIT- (A), and is hereby deleted - Decided against revenue
|