9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (12) TMI 696X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r 2005-06 2. Effective grounds of the Revenue in this appeal read as follows- "(i) The Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals)-IV, Hyderabad has erred both on facts and in law. (ii) The CIT(A) has erred in holding that there is no justification in denial of deduction u/s. 80-IB only on the ground that the audit report in form No.10CCB has not been enclosed with the return of income while furnishing of form No.10CCB is mandatory for claiming deduction u/s. 80-IB. (iii) The decisions in the cases of Jagdish Ram Kishan Chand (304 ITR 450(HP); Panama Chemical Works (245 ITR 684)(MP); Gupta Fabs (274 ITR 620(P and H); Valli Cotton Traders Private Ltd. (288 ITR 400(Mad); Viswanath Products (118 ITD 47(ITAT Lucknow) ref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he course of re-assessment proceedings, The issue that arises for consideration is whether the Assessing Officer was justified in disallowing the assessee's claim for deduction under S.80IB on the ground that the audit report in Form 10CCB was not filed alongwith the return of income; or whether the CIT(A) was correct in proceeding on the basis of Form 10CCb filed during the course of re-assessment proceedings and directing the Assessing Officer to allow the claim of the assessee for deduction under S.80IB of the Act. It is settled position of law, as consistently held by various Benches of this Tribunal and as held in various decisions referred to by the CIT(A) in the impugned order, that though filing of audit report in Form 10CCB is mand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T(A). We accordingly uphold the same and reject the grounds of the Revenue in this appeal. ITA No.1199/Hyd/2010: Assessment Year 2007-08 6. Effective grounds of the Revenue in this appeal read as follows- "1. The order of the CIT(A) is erroneous both on the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The CIT(A) has erred in directing the Assessing Officer to grant deduction of RS.34,16,740 u/s. 80IB(3)(ii). 3. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Unit II is a distinct entity as per the provisions of Income tax Rule 18 BBB and the Assessing Officer has rightly disallowed the assessee's claim after gathering all relevant facts." 7. The Learned Departmental Representative strongly supporting the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said to have the basic character of independence of function and ability to survive independent of Unit I. In the case of VSNL (Supra), Special Bench of the Tribunal has held that distinguishing feature of an undertaking eligible for deduction is its basic character of independence of function and ability to survive independently of the old units. Whether a particular unit is a distinct entity or part of the other units depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Since in the case on hand, Unit II cannot survive on its own and independent of Unit I, it has to be held that it forms part of the assessee's undertaking as a whole and not a distinct entity. The caselaw relied upon by the Learned Departmental Representative has no app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
