TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 724X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are recorded in the Excise records and excise returns have been filed by M/s. Flex Art Goa. It is also a fact that Ess Dee Aluminium was having factory license prior to commencement of this business. The partnership Firm has permanent registration as 831 and registration with Sales Tax Authorities. In summary, what is required to be fulfilled for eligible deduction u/s.80-IB is not in dispute – Decided in favor of Assessee. Incomes not eligible for deduction u/s 80IB of the Income Tax Act - Assessee claimed deduction under section 80IB without excluding the interest income - Assessee contended that he has also incurred interest expenses, and therefore, only net interest, if any, ought to be excluded for computing the business income derived from eligible industrial undertaking, and therefore, not eligible for deduction under section 80IB of the Act – Held that:- Interest on FDRs cannot be held as income derived from industrial undertaking in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pandian Chemicals Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Income-tax, [2003 (4) TMI 3 - SUPREME Court] - The only contention by the assessee before us is netting of interest income with the in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated 30.3.2010 for A.Y.2006-2007. ITA No.1752/Ahd/2010 and ITA No.2088/Ahd/2010 are the cross appeals filed by the assessee and the Revenue against the order of the CIT(A) dated 30.3.2010 for A.Y.2007-2008. 3. Sole issue in the appeal of the Revenue for A.Y.2005-2006 and ground nos.1 and 2 in A.Y.2006-2007 and ground nos.1 and 2 in A.Y.2007-2008 are directed against the orders of the CIT(A) holding that the assessee is eligible for deduction under section 80IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and directing the Assessing Officer to allow deduction of Rs. 7,50,01,370/- for A.Y.2006-2007 and Rs. 22,85,30,567/- in A.Y.2007-2008. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing aluminum foil for flexible packaging materials. The manufacturing unit of the assessee is located in the Union Territory of Daman which is a backward area of Union Territory as specified in the VIIIth Schedule to the Income Tax Act ("the Act" for short). The unit is located in Daman which began its manufacturing activities prior to 31-3-2004 thereby being eligible for deduction under section 80IB of the Act. 5. The Assessing Officer ("AO" for short) on perusal of the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Bhimpore, Daman w.e.f. 03.03.2004. It was submitted that the plant and machinery in this industrial undertaking were new and the firm has employed more than 10 workers in its manufacturing process. It was also submitted that the firm, M/s.Ess Dee Aluminum was dissolved w.e.f. 16.07.2004 and the entire running business of the firm was taken over by the assessee-company with all its assets and liabilities. Copy of dissolution deed was filed with the AO. It was further submitted that the company made expansion of industrial undertaking by adding more plant machinery. On the above facts, it was submitted that since industrial undertaking started its manufacturing activity prior to 31.3.2004 and therefore, satisfied the conditions for claiming deduction under section 80IB. It was also submitted that eligibility of deduction under section 80IB was with reference to profit earned by industrial undertaking. It was submitted that the change in constitution or ownership of industrial undertaking was not at all relevant for the purpose of deduction under section 80IB. Since industrial undertaking was same, which was operated by the partnership firm, in which the assessee-company was a par ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... p firm. It was explained that since business was carried on by the partnership firm earlier and since there was no closing stock at that time of dissolution of the partnership firm, no opening stock was shown by the assessee-company. Finally, it was submitted that it was submitted to the AO that since all the observations made by the AO in the letter dated 24.9.207 was without taking the facts into consideration, specially the fact that the industrial undertaking was earlier in operation by the Firm M/s.Ess Dee Aluminum, the observation of the AO against the assessee were not correct. It was submitted that in the facts of the case, documents filed by the assessee clearly showed that industrial undertaking began to manufacture its article from 3.3.2004 i.e. much before 31.3.2004, and hence was eligible for deduction under section 80IB. It was further submitted that during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee had filed a copy of letter dated 8.7.2004 written to Shri Khemchand Dhingra in which it had been conveyed that taking into account the earlier payments made by the assessee-company, he was requested to agree to the request for not charging monthly lease rentals and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the facts of the case and surrounding circumstances, and arrived at the conclusion that the land mentioned in the MOU to be partly used for manufacturing activities from 12.2.2004, was not given to the assessee before 31.3.2004. It was submitted that this fact borne by the record that amount of Rs. 1,11,111/- was paid by cheque to Shri Khemchand Dhingra, as earnest money for purchase of plot. It is also a fact that the final deed was executed on 8.7.2004 and the full consideration was paid. It was further submitted that it was also a fact that business of the firm upto 16.7.2004 and thereafter by the assessee-company continued on the same plot of land and the same was still continuing. It was also a fact that the manufacturing activity was started by the firm in which the company was partner from 12.2.2004 on part of the land and after dissolution of the firm, the assessee-company took over the entire assets and liabilities and the business was expanded to a great extent and even till the date the manufacturing of aluminum foil etc. was being done on the same plot and in the same factory which originally belonged to Shri Khemchand Dhingra. It was submitted that the sequence of even ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Udyog Nagar, Village Bhimpore, Daman. It was further submitted that certain direct enquiries were made by the AO from Sales-Tax Department and DIC, Daman. Sales Tax Department and DIC, Daman replied to the AO and these replies clearly showed that the unit was working at Plot No.124-133, Panchal Udyog Nagar, Village Bhimpore, Daman prior to March, 2004. It was submitted that the CIT(A) had made inspection of the assessment records of the assessee and has noted that the AO made enquiries from Sales Tax Department and DIC and also got reply from such department. It was submitted while deciding the issue of allowability of deduction under section 80IB, the AO completely ignored the replies of Sales-Tax Department, and DIC, Daman and did not mention in the assessment order about enquiries made from these two important government departments. It was, therefore, submitted that the AO has carried out the investigation with other authorities/agencies, such as, Sales-Tax Department, DIC, Daman, Daman Industrial Association, Electricity Department, department of Industries, Department of Industries, Chief Inspector of Factories, Department of Value Added Tax, Ministry of Corporate Affairs and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Kotak Mahindra Bonk Ltd. xii) Sale Deed for purchase of same unit for which part consideration was paid in February, 2001 was executed in July, 2004 between the appellant company and M/s. Western Consolidated Pvt. Ltd. xiii) The Partnership Firm was dissolved on 16.07.2004 and the business was taken user by the appellant company. 7. The learned CIT(A) considering the submissions of the assessee, allowed the claim for deduction under section 80IB of the Act to the assessee by observing as under: Decision: I have carefully gone though the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer and the submission made by the Id. A.R. I have also perused the case records containing investigation materials collected by the Assessing Officer, the submissions put forth by the appellant's representative, the various case laws relied upon by the Assessing Officer and the appellant company. In my opinion, the finding of the AO have two limbs, which can be categorized as under: i) The appellant had not started manufacturing before 31.03.2004 based on the replies from M/s. Western Consolidated Pvt. Ltd and its Directors and the appellant had reconstruc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shows the figure of current year only no figures of previous year are there Previous years figures are not given as the company was not in existence during the previous year. Previous year operation was done by the partnership firm and there ore separate books of account maintained by the Partnership firm. Since the assessee company has no previous year, the question of giving previous year figures does not arise. 6. Initial assessment year has been shown as 2005-06 in the Form No.10CCB. In Form 10CCB given on page no.25 the auditor has mentioned in clause 8 9 as under: 8. Date of commencement of operation/activity by the undertaking or enterprise 10.02.2004. 9. Initial assessment year from when deduction is being claimed A.Y.2005-2006. This means that the industrial undertaking has commenced its activities from 10.02.2004 i.e. by partnership firm which is relevant to assessment year 2005-2006 and hence the initial assessment year is shown as assessment year 2005- 06. Showing of commencement of operation/activity by undertaking in 10CCB on page 25 by the auditor from 10.02.2004 shows that the operation/ manufacturing was started prior to 31.3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... part of purchase price for taking part possession of the factory premises. An MOU dated 12.02.04 was entered between Mr. Khemchand Dhingra and appellant by which part possession of the factory premises was given to the appellant for installation of machinery and for commencing manufacturing activity immediately by drawing power supply from the vendors electric power connection. This MOU was signed by Khemchand Dhingra and the same is duly notarized. The A.O. has doubted the signature of Mr. Khemchand Dhingra. The appellant submits that the signature of Khemchand Dhingra duly tallies with the signature made on final registered sale deed. After taking part possession of the factory premises, the erstwhile partnership Firm installed plant machinery and carried out manufacturing activity in the said premises. This is evident from the following facts i) The bills and vouchers for purchase of new Plant and Machinery were produced before the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceeding. ii) Changes of business place /factory was intimated to the Sales Tax Department as well as to the DIC, Daman from time to time and the same is recorded in their records. iii) The partnership Firm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ale Deed resembles and without any scientific basis they cannot be rejected as forged one. Hence, the appellant submission in this context was accepted on reasonable belief. 13. The appellant had also filed details of P L A/c., Balance Sheet etc. of the Firm Ess Dee Aluminium before the AO and the AO had not rejected the content therein, which again support the cause of the appellant. 11. The assessee-company has claimed that it became partners in the firm M/s. Ess Dee Aluminum w.e.f. 3rd" March, 2004 and the manufacturing activity began in the new industrial undertaking situated at Plot No.124-132 Panchal Udyog Nagar, Village Bhimpore daman with effect from 03.03.2004. In this connection, the assesses submitted copy of MOU made at Daman on 12.02.04 between Mr. Khemchand Dhingra and Ess Dee Aluminum P. Ltd. in which clause No.6, it is specifically mentioned that purchaser i.e. Ess Dee Aluminum P. Ltd. shall pay the vendor i.e. Shri Khemchand Dhingra and others lease rent of Rs.10,000/- on or before the 10th day of succeedingwritten to Shri Khemchand Dhingra in which it has been conveyed that: Taking into account our early payment, you were kind enough to agree to day on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 so as to start operation/ manufacturing before 31.03.2004 to avail of deduction u/s. 80IB. M/s. Western Consolidated Pvt. Ltd., agreed to give part possession of the factory on the condition of making part payment and charging of rent at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month. Finally due to waiver of rent at the time of final payment the entries regarding charging of rent was not made either in the books of account of partnership Finn or by Western Consolidated Private Limited. When enquiries were made, the employee of M/s. Western Consolidated Pvt. Ltd. wrongly denied of giving part possession of the factory premises, signing of any MOU or charging of any rent or electricity charges. While the facts of the case clearly prove that manufacturing/ production was done by the undertaking and the same continued on the same premises afterwards. In this connection, we wish to bring to your kind notice that the Assessing Officer has also made certain enquiries and written letters to the Sales Tax Department and to DIC, Daman. On inspection of assessment records, it is seen that the Assessing Officer has written letters to the General Manager, DIC and Assistant Sales Tax Officer on 26.11.2007 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs received on behalf of Western Consolidated Pvt. Ltd. Khemchand Dhingra and Vineet Dhingra vide letter dated 07.12.2007. However, the company chairman has asked for adjournment citing personal reason for attendance and also not filed any explanation on the issue. The Assessing Officer issued summons to the Managing Director of the appellant company on 07.12.2007 to attend and to explain the reply received from the employee of M/s. Western Consolidated Pvt. Ltd. fixing the hearing on 12.12.2007 i.e. within 5 days. As the M.D. was not available on 12.12.2007 he applied for a short adjournment. The Assessing Officer without giving any further time passed assessment order on 27.12.2007. Although A.O. had ample time i.e. 15 days at his disposal, he without giving further opportunity passed assessment order on 27.12.2007. No fresh opportunity was given by Assessing Officer. 13. From the above facts, it is apparent that assessee failed to establish that the production was in fact commenced on or before 31.03.2004. It may be out of place to mention here that the documents created by the assessee-company to establish that the production was commenced at Plot No. 124- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 at ST/DA/7597 and DA/CST/7037 The Assessing Officer has mentioned that Sales Tax and CST registration was granted to assessee with effect from 19.07.2004 at ST/DA/7597 and DS/CST/7037. It was explained by the appellant that earlier Sales Tax and CST Registration was granted to the Partnership Firm in which the appellant was a partner and the unit was SSI unit. After the Firm became the proprietary concern of the appellant company, fresh registration for Sales Tax and CST was applied, which was granted on 19.07.2004 in the name of appellant. Appellant submissions are acceptable. 16. PF registration application filed with the PF department on 10.02.04 shows that the employment of labours by the assessee company is with effect from April. 2004 that too in the month of April, 2004 only one labour has been employed and in May, 2004 it creased to 02 labours. In the earlier unit which was run by the Partnership firm, PF was not applicable and hence no registration was taken. The appellant company applied for PF registration on incorporation on 10.02.2004. This has got no relevance with the business carried by partnership firm. Appellant submissions are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the plant and machineries purchased for setting up of the new industrial undertaking had already been filed with submissions for the assessment year under consideration vide its submission in response to questionnaire dated 03.01.2007. As per the requirement of AO, all the bills for purchase of plant machinery for expansion of industrial unit were filed by the appellant. The bills are for plant machinery installed at factory premises for expansion of the business. Appellant submissions are acceptable 20. It has employed the effective workers after July, 2004 as per the application filed with the PF department PF application was filed only when PF was applicable to the industrial unit. Appellant submissions are acceptable 21. Assessee has obtained all the required licenses and certificates from various government agencies like Central Excise, Sales Tax, DIC Pollution Control board and factory license, permission from Gram Panchayat etc. as required under the respective legislation/authority for setting up a new unit in the year under consideration only. Copies of the same have already been filed on record. As mentioned above all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... over by the appellant company. Clause Nos. 3, 4 and 5 of the Deed of Dissolution reads as under. "(3) The Retiring Partners, the party of the First Part and the party of the Second Part hereto shall be paid the credit balance standing to their capital account. (4)The Retiring Partners, the party of the First Part and the party of the Second Part hereto do hereby irrevocably assign all their right, title, interest and demand in the firm of M/s.Ess Dee and all its assets including stock-intrade, book debts, goodwill, trade mark, trade name etc. thereof to the Continuing Partner, the party of the Third Party hereto. (5) The aforesaid business of M/s.Ess Dee Aluminium has been taken over as a running business with all its assets and liabilities including stock in trade, book debts, trade mark, trade name, goodwill and every other benefit, obligations etc. attached to the partnership by the Continuing Partner, the party of the Third Party hereto. In view of this, it is submitted that the entire business was taken over by the appellant company. Appellant submissions are acceptable 27. There is no transfer of capital from old unit to new unit. As mentioned in (d) ab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y constitution is changed. Appellant submissions are acceptable. 32. The assessee company has made an application dated 13.07.2004 to the Ministry of Commerce and Industry for industrial Assistance, wherein proposed capacity of Aluminum foil was mentioned at 3600 tons. Subsequently another application dated 02.04.2006 was made for expansion of capacity from 3600 tons to 18000 tons, which itself shows that the undertaking established tinder M/s. Ess Dee Aluminum Pvt. Ltd. is new one and not an expansion of M/s. Ess Dee Aluminum. As per the assessee's submission the partnership firm was dissolved only on 16.07.2004, whereas the company came into existence much earlier. The assessee company has promoted new undertaking for manufacture of aluminum foil of the capacity of 3600 tons. As per the applications made before the Ministry of Commerce, only inference can be drawn is that partnership firm had no capacity of manufacturing the aluminum foils It is submitted that the partnership firm was doing manufacturing of flexible packing material for pharma companies on job basis and running unit at Plot No.124- 133, Panchal Udyog Nagar, Bhimpore, Daman. After taking over ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant submissions are acceptable. 35. The only machinery which the assessee company claimed to be owned in view of dissolution of the firm was clubbed under the head preoperative expenditure and capitalized only on 31.10.2004. The old machinery which was taken over by the company on dissolution of the Firm along with all other assets and liabilities was clubbed under the head 'preoperative expenditure' and when the expanded unit has started production, the same was capitalized under the head Plant and Machinery. The details of preoperative expenditure and details of addition to assets was filed before the Assessing Officer in which the Plant and Machinery of the old unit has been capitalized. Appellant submissions are acceptable. 36. The term loan was sanctioned by the Corporation Bank and Shamrao Vithal Cooperative Bank Ltd. to the company to part finance the Green field project cost of setting manufacturing facilities for Parma Grade Aluminium Foil before the firm was dissolved. For expansion plan, company was in need of financial assistance by way of loan. It always take time for sanctioning of loan by the banks. Hence, company on the basis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... capital gains for the F.Y. 2004-05 relating to A.Y. 2005-06. The R/I was filed on 30.10.2005 showing business loss of Rs.66,33,237/- and Capital Gain of Rs.83,11,023/- shown was taxable in that year. The information furnished to the department was on 14.11.2007 much after filling the R/I for A.Y. 2005-06. If M/s. Western Consolidated Private Ltd. accepted that the part possession was given before March' 2004, the Long Term Capital Gain would have arised in the A.Y. 2004-05 and the WCPL should have subjected to Re-assessment proceeding and higher tax liability with interest components thereon. The first directive u/s.133(6) dated 12.10.2007 was replied by Shri. K.C.Dhingra, Director whereas the vital information sought by the AO in the subsequent directives were replied by Mr. Debashish Chakravorty, the authorized signatory. Apparently, the content of the letter dated 4.12.2007 from Mr. Debashish Chakravarty was evasive and not to the true point of clarification sought by the A.O. The A.O. categorically asked that, whether any MOU or letter dated 08.07.2004 was signed and received by you for which the reply was general in nature. Similarly the second important query, the A.O. soug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Assessing Officer and the appellant company. 18.1 The Assessing Officer has not brought on record any independent, clear and cogent evidence and material to disbelieve that the production was not commenced before 31st March, 2004. The reply received from authorized signatory of M/s. Western Consolidated Pvt. Ltd. cannot be the sufficient evidence to hold that the unit had not commenced production before 31st March, 2004. 18.2 Since the A.O. did not allow opportunity to the appellant to explain the M.O.U. and the replies received from M/s. Western Consolidated Pvt. Ltd., it cannot be said that the M.O.U. and replies were concocted and not genuine. Even the signature of Khemchand Dhingra on M.O.U. and Sale Deed looks to be made by same person. Moreover, there are plethora of evidences in favour of appellant to show that manufacturing started before 31.03.2004. 18.3 Reliance is placed on the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Kishinchand Chellaram v. Commissioner of Income tax, Bombay City-II, 125 ITR 713. In this case the Hon. Supreme Court reversed the decision of High Court and held as under: "Held reversing the decision of the High Court, on the facts, that the t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant. 18.5 So far other issues raised by the A.O., I have looked into the assessment order and the submission made by the appellant. Excise registration and service tax registration is to be taken only when the Excise and Service tax is applicable. Earlier Excise and Service tax was not applicable and the same was applicable in the case of appellant company with effect from 19.07.2004. Similarly, CST and Sales Tax registration was taken by the partnership Firm and the unit was SSI unit and since the constitution has been changed from partnership to a Private Limited Company, fresh CST and Sales Tax registration was granted. PF registration application is generally filed when PF is applicable. Application for factory license was made on 16.09.2005 by the company as there was change in constitution and the unit was changed from SSI unit to MSI unit. 18.6 Considering the above factual position. I hold that merely because the authorized signatory has mentioned in the letter that part possession was not given in February, 2004 it cannot be a ground for denying deduction U/s. 80-1B of Act. The Assessing Officer has not been able to establish that there was no production and no sales/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enefits u/s. 80-IB and operating in this part have started their manufacturing activities during February-March'o4 because the time available for setting up of manufacturing unit was too short as the said notification was issued in the month of February'o4. The appellant was also victim of paucity of time. Therefore, considering the facts and the circumstances and the evidences before me, I am of the considered view that the Assessing Officer's action in holding that production did not commence before 31st March, 2004 suffers from inadequate evidences and is with incorrect presumption. Thus, these grounds of appeal are allowed." 8. The learned DR relied on the order of the Assessing Officer, whereas the learned counsel for the assessee supported the order of the learned CIT(A). 9. We have heard rival submissions and perused the orders of the lower authorities and material available on record. In the instant case, the deduction claimed under section 80IB was denied by the AO on the ground that the assessee commenced production after 31.3.2004. The claim of the assessee is that it commenced production on 3.3.2004 was mainly not accepted by the AO on the ground that the premises ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Interest on staff loan 0 4,913 4,389 16,121 4. DEPB Incentives 9,42,601 4,71,595 1,98,739 0 Total 15,42,737 1,11,00,216 3,67,347 3,83,660 12. At the time of hearing, the learned AR of the assessee submitted that as regards dividend income of Rs. 6,756/- from Daman unit and Rs. 8,900/- from Goa unit, he conceded that same are not eligible for deduction under section 80IB of the Act. Thus, this part of the ground of the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 13. As regards the interest on FDR of Rs. 5,93,380/- from Daman unit and Rs. 1,52,319/- from Goa unit in asstt.year 2006-2007 and FDR interest of Rs. 1,06,23,708/- from Daman unit and Rs. 3,67,539/- from Goa unit in asstt.year 2007-2008, he prayed that the matter should be restored back to the file of the AO for examining the same and allowing netting of the interest income with interest expenditure and reducing only the net amount of interest income, if any. For this, he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ACG Associated Capsules Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Income-tax, (2012) 343 ITR 089 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re us is netting of interest income with the interest expenditure of the assessee. In our considered view, when deposit in FDRs is made with the borrowed funds, then, only net income can be said to be the interest income derived from FDRs. However, we find that in the instant case, the AO has categorically recorded that the assessee has brought no material before him to show that borrowed funds were utilized for making the FDRs. We find that before us also the assessee could not bring any material to show that there was any nexus between the interest expenditure and the interest income earned on FDRs. by the assessee. In the absence of the same, we do not find any good reasons to interfere with the orders of the lower authorities on this issue, which is confirmed. 16. In respect of decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ACG Associated Capsules Pvt. Ltd. (supra), we find that the same was rendered in the context of section 80HHC of the Act. As per the Explanation (baa) to section 80HHC for computing the profit of the business, 90% of the interest income which has been included in the business income, is required to be excluded. In this context, the Hon'ble Supreme Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n arises out of and is directly related to the sale transaction involving the export of goods of the industrial undertaking. 22. The learned DR before us relied on the order of the AO. On the other hand, the learned AR for the assessee supported the order of the learned CIT(A), and submitted that the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Amba Impex, 282 ITR 144 (Guj) has held that exchange rate fluctuation was part of the sale price, and therefore eligible for deduction under section 80IB of the Act. As against this, the learned DR could not point out any specific error in the order of the learned CIT(A), and also could not cite any contrary decision to the one, relied on by the learned CIT(A) and the counsel for the assessee. We find no good reason to interfere with the order of the learned CIT(A), which is confirmed and the ground of the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 23. The ground no.4 of the assessee in asstt.year 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 are directed against the order of the learned CIT(A) in holding that the sundry balance written back of Rs. 6,72,286/- for A.Y.2006-2007 and Rs. 63,530/- for A.Y.2007-2008 are eligible for deduction under section 80IB of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
