TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 68X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dispute that both these incomes have been treated by the Assessing Officer as business income – thus, the matter remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication – Decided in favour of Revenue. - ITA No.2914/Ahd/2010, ITA No.2938/Ahd/2010, ITA No.2719/Ahd/2011, CO No.284/Ahd/2011 - - - Dated:- 26-2-2014 - Shri Mukul Kr. Shrawat And Shri T. R. Meena,JJ. For the Petitioner : Shri K. C. Mathews, Sr. D. R. For the Respondent : Shri Sanjay R. Shah ORDER Per Shri Mukul Kumar Shrawat, Judicial Member A. ITA No.2914/Ahd/2010 (Revenue's Appeal) Revenue has filed this appeal against the order of learned CIT(A), Gandhinagar, dated 12.08.2010 and the substantive ground raised is as under: The ld. CIT(A) has erred in l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s upheld. In respect of scrap sale of Rs.28,62,448/-, the exemption u/s.10B was allowed; therefore, the Revenue is now before us. For rest of the additions confirmed by the learned CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal. B. ITA No.2938/Ahd/2010 (Assessee's Appeal) 3. The substantive grounds raised by the assessee are as follows: 1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the difference in the language of provisions of Section 80IB(3) Section 10B(4) and thereby erroneously applying decisions rendered in relation to deduction u/s. 80IB to the present case. It is submitted it be so held now. 2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on fact in holding that government subsidy of Rs.49,71,965/- received on incremental Exp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r decisions namely, Topman Exports vs. ITO (2009) 125 TTJ 289 (Mumbai)[SB] and Liberty of India vs. CIT (2009) 317 ITR 218 (SC) are concerned, the same are not pronounced in the context of the provisions of sec.10B, therefore, finally from the side of the appellant only this precedent was cited in respect of ground Nos.3 to 6 for the legal proposition that export incentive is to be allowed in terms of the verdict of Maral Overseas Ltd. (supra). Undisputedly, this decision of the Respected Special Bench dated 28/03/2012 was not available when the assessment was finalized. The Assessing Officer did not have the benefit of this verdict. The Respected Special Bench has given the direction that an assessee is eligible for claim of deduction as e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... argued that in addition to the subsidy and interest income the learned CIT(A) who also have disallowed the sale of scrap from the exemption of Section 10B of the Act. As noted above, almost on identical situation when an order of the Special Bench has been pronounced subsequently and that the AO was not aware about the order of the said Special Bench, then it was deemed fit to restore the issue back to that stage so that the correct income can be determined on satisfaction, for this appeal the same recourse is required to be adopted. As on date, we have been informed that the said order of the Special Bench stands good in the eyes of law. As far as few other decisions as cited by learned AR are concerned, the same are pronounced in respect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in law and in facts in confirming penalty in respect of disallowance of deduction u/s.10B of the Act in respect of interest income (Rs.3,74,922) and other income (Rs.25,470/-). It is submitted that it be so held now. 2. Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and in facts in holding that the respondent has furnished inaccurate particulars of its interest income (Rs.3,74,922) and other income (Rs.25,470/-). It is submitted it be so held now. 9. In the light of the observation made hereinabove, since the quantum addition now stood set aside; hence, in consequence thereof the penalty does not survive. The Cross Objector should not have any grievance because the ground is allowed for statistical purpose only. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
