TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 466X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uired to re-compute the taxable profit for the purpose of computation of book profit u/s.115JA of the Act in the light of the guide lines laid down by the Hon Courts as cited above. - Decided in favour of assessee. Reduction of amount of profits derived by eligible industrial undertaking referred in s. 80IA from the book profits u/s. 115JA - Held that:- This issue has already been decided in Assessment Year 1999-2000 wherein held that as per the Appellant the deduction U/s 80IA on Silvasa Unit, however the A.O. had allocated certain expenses and reduced the Profit to compute the deduction U/s 80IA. But it was pleaded that this issue was not decided by Ld. CIT(A). Also in the past for A.Y. 1998-99 this very issue was restored back to the file of Ld. CIT (A) in assessee's own case - Thus for this year as well, this ground may be treated as allowed but for statistical purposes only. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purpose only. Inclusion of Exchange Rate Fluctuation/Difference in respect of balances under the Exchange Earners Foreign Currency Account (EEFC Account) in total turnover for the purpose of deduction u/s. 80HHC - Held that:- This issue is directly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... placed before the A.O. and to accomplish it, we hereby restore this ground back to AO to decide as per law accordingly. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes. Addition of expenses attributable to earning exempt income for the purpose of computation of book profits u/s. 115JA - Held that:- There is a latest decision CIT vs. Gujarat State Fertilizers and Chemicals (2013 (7) TMI 701 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT) wherein it was held that the A.O. had added the amount of estimated expenditure on earning of dividend income u/s 14A. So by referring sec. 115JB(2) it was held by the A.O. that it was required to be added in the profit shown in the P&L A/c. Commissioner of Appeals had deleted the addition in the normal computation, consequently deleted such addition under sec 115JB on the ground that this would not serve any purpose. The Tribunal affirmed this . In the High Court it was held that when the said sum was added as an expenditure estimated on earning of dividend income U/s 14A had been deleted , the said deletion for the purpose of Sec. 115JB required to be confirmed . For that reason we hereby restore this issue back to the file of A.O. - Decided in favour of asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the addition was directed to be deleted. We hereby endorse the view taken by the First Appellate Authority primarily on the ground that in a situation when a search was conducted and no material was found, then according to us, the amount was rightly directed to be deleted. - Decided against revenue. Disallowance of interest payment - CIT(A) deleted addition - Held that:- Since in the past a consistent view had been taken that once the Revenue had accepted the business decision of appointment of the said firms then in the same breath could not question the assessee’s other decision taken in the ordinary course of business. We therefore follow the view already taken by the respected coordinate benches and affirm the decision of CIT(A) - Decided against revenue. Unaccounted sale of spent solvent - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- It was merely presumed by the A.O. that even for the post search period the Solvent might have been sold on the same rates. But the basic question is that when even for search period the impugned addition did not survive on account of lack of evidence then how such presumption could be approved for the post search period. The reasoning app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... djustment to trading export profit on account of export promotion expenses - Held that:- CIT(A) has given certain findings on facts which were not confronted to the AO. The ld.CIT(A) has noted that the assessee had maintained the details about export promotional expenses which were stated to be identifiable. It was also noted by him that those expenditure were attributable to different products. Further, he has noted that the assessee has furnished accurate details of the direct expenses attributable to turnover of the products including the overseas sales promotional expenses. Since those were new evidences, which were entertained by the ld.CIT(A), therefore it is demanded by the ld.CIT-DR to give an opportunity to examine those evidences which were entertained by the ld.CIT(A) at the back of the AO. Considering the said preliminary technical objection of the assessee, we hereby restore this ground to the file of ld.CIT(A) with the direction to give opportunity to both the sides and then decide as per law. - Decided in favour of revenue for statistical purposes. Reducing deduction under section 80-IA - Assessing Officer has disallowed depreciation and the profit on sale of DEPB ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,495/-. In respect of this Ground it is informed that the Assessee had claimed the deduction U/s 80HHC of ₹ 7,96,93,199/-, whereas the A.O. has allowed the deduction only of ₹ 4,62,87,167/- on the ground that only the eligible profit of Sec. 80HHC is to be deducted for computing the income u/s 115JA. 1.2 When this issue was carried before the Ld. CIT(A), he has held that there could not be two different figures of 80HHC working, one normal business profit and another book profit. So he has held that for Sec. 115 JA only the profits eligible for deduction U/s 80HHC was to be considered. Since the ground of the assessee was dismissed hence further in appeal. 1.3 Having heard the submissions of both the sides and after reading the cited decisions viz. Ajanta Pharma Ltd. 327 ITR 305 (S.C.) and Bhari Information Tech.Sys.P.Ltd. 340 ITR 593 ( S.C.) in the background of the facts of this case we are of the view that the decision of Syncome Formulations (I) Ltd. 292 ITR 144 (AT)(Mum.)(SB) has been approved by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhari Information Tech.Sys.P.Ltd.(supra). Therein it was held that the deduction u/s.80HHE of the Act in the case of Export ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [subject to the conditions specified in sub-cls. (4) and (4A) of that section] to obliterate the difference between eligibility and deductibility of profits as contended on behalf of the Department. 11. For the above reasons, we set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and restore the judgment of the Tribunal. Accordingly, the civil appeal of the assessee is allowed with no order as to costs. 1.4. Therefore, respectfully following the above precedents, we hereby hold that the AO is required to re-compute the taxable profit for the purpose of computation of book profit u/s.115JA of the Act in the light of the guide lines laid down by the Hon Courts as cited above. Thus, ground raised by the assessee is, therefore, allowed. 2) Ground No 2 is reproduced below: Re: Reduction of amount of profits derived by eligible industrial undertaking referred in s. 80IA from the book profits u/s. 115JA. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in not deciding the ground of the Appellant relating to the deduction in the computation of Book Profits u/s. 115JA in respect of profits of the eligible industrial undertaking as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the miscellaneous expenses were reduced but on the other hand claimed excess deduction under Sec. 80HHC 80 IA. Further he has observed that the receipt being in the nature of misc. trading receipt then it should be treated as part of the Total Turn Over and 90% should be reduced while working eligible profits of deduction U/s 80 HHC. He has concluded that there shall be no effect on the profits declared but working of the deductions of 80HHC 80IA was required to be recalculated. Being aggrieved the matter was carried to the first appellate authority. 3.2. The explanation of the assessee was that the sales proceeds received from the customers were credited to Exchange Earners Foreign Currency Account (EEFC) in foreign exchange. As per RBI guide lines 50% of export proceeds are allowed to be kept in this account. In this EEFC a/c the foreign currency is credited as per the prevailing rate of exchange. But as on 31st March when the annual accounts are drawn the balance in EEFC account is re-valued at the prevailing exchange rate as on 31st March. The difference arising from this account due to foreign currency exchange rate fluctuation is part of the income. So the argu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve appreciated that sale of scrap represented a recovery of process loss and cannot be regarded as trading receipts. 4.1. On perusal of P L A/c it was noted by the A.O. that a sum of ₹ 15,75,932/- was received on account of sale of scrap generated from business. The appellant s argument was that the receipt was not a trading receipt hence not a part of the turnover. But that was rejected and held that scrap sales were directly received in its business exercise, hence held as part of the total turnover . A.O. s view was challenged before C.I.T (A), but rejected. Now further challenged before us. 4.2. Having heard the submissions of both the sides and after considering the case law cited of Punjab Stainless Ltd. 364 ITR 144 (S.C.), wherein the assessee was claiming deduction u/s.80HHC of the Act and the issue was to decide the meaning of word total turnover . That assessee was a manufacturer and exporter of Stainless Steel Utensils. In the process of manufacturing, some portion of the Steel could not be used and it was treated as scrap. The assessee sold this scrap in the local market and income arising from sale was reflected in the Profit Loss account. For the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ses attributable to unrealised export proceeds while computing the trading export profits. 5.1. Ld Counsel appearing on behalf of the Assessee has stated at Bar not to press this ground, hence dismissed being not pressed. 6) Ground No. 6 is reproduced below: Re: Disallowance u/s. 14A 6.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance of interest expense of ₹ 3,86,765/- on the ground that the interest was allocable for earning the share of profit from partnership firm being exempt income u/s. 10(2A) ) u/s. 14A of the Act. 6.2 The CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the capital invested in the partnership firm represented the accumulated profits ploughed back and that there was no component of any borrowed funds in capital invested. 6.1) The A.O. has mentioned that the assessee had earned share of profit of ₹ 116.98 lac from a Partnership Firm which was exempt, stated to be U/s 10 Of the Act, therefore the expenses attributable were proposed to be disallowed under the provisions of Sec. 14A of the Act. Assessee had furnished a reply, only relevant portion is reproduced be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he profit was ploughed back but the amount, stated to be ₹ 16.25 Crores invested in the firm, actually invested out of the said interest free fund is to be established. Certain basic information such as fund flow statement is not available before us. Side by side, A.O. has simply applied a formula which was only giving the figures of the total income verses exempted income, however, before applying the said formula it is also a requirement to establish that the interest bearing borrowed funds have actually been applied to earn the exempted income and then if such expenditure is not separately identifiable then on prorate basis disallowance can be calculated. Moreover this is A.Y 1999-2000, which is before the introduction of Rule 8D. We therefore direct that if the assessee is placing reliance on the above cited decisions then the connected information should be placed before the A.O. and to accomplish it, we hereby restore this ground back to AO to decide as per law accordingly. This ground may therefore be treated as allowed for statistical purpose. 7) Ground No.7 is reproduced below: 7. Re: Addition of expenses attributable to earning exempt income for the purpose ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e industrial undertaking. 8.2 The CIT( A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the said licenses were received in respect of the exports made by the Silvassa Unit (eligible undertaking for sec. 80-,IA) of the Appellant. 8.1 Ld Senior Advocate, Mr. Soparkar has expressed that the appellant is not willing to contest this ground hence hereby dismissed being not pressed. 9. Ground No. 9 is reproduced below: 9. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) erred not deciding on the ground of the Appellant relating to allocation of expenses to Silvassa unit eligible for deduction u/s. 80IA on account of exchange rate difference reduced from Miscellaneous Expenses. 9.1. The observation of the A.O. was that the assessee had claimed deduction u/s 80IA at ₹ 40,13,40,021/- pertaining to the profits of Silvasa old unit as well as Silvasa -1 unit. The assessee had filed the unit-wise profit loss a/c, in which profit from both the Silvasa Units was the said amount for the purpose of claim of deduction 80IA. However it was commented by the A.O. that the assessee had not allocated certain expenses to both Silvasa Units, such as R D ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llenged. 10.2 When the matter was carried before the First Appellate Authority, the action of the A.O. was confirmed. 10.3 Heard both the sides at some length. Sec. 35 D grants a deduction in respect of expenditure which may otherwise be disallowable on the ground that it is a capital expenditure or is incurred prior to the setting up of the business, but in instalments in number of assessment years. This can also be interpreted, and naturally so, that an expenditure which is otherwise allowable as revenue expenditure cannot be brought within the purview of this section. Certain fine distinction had been made by Honble courts in respect of the Sub-sections of this section 35D, such as, that the fees paid for registration of the amendment of the memorandum of association for enhancement of authorised capital is held to be covered by sec. 35D (2) (c) (iv) . But expenditure on registration of a company is not covered as per sec 35D(2)(c)(iii). The undisputed factual position is that the filing fees to ROC and stamp duty, etc. was paid in connection of preferential issue which were redeemable after three years. 10.4) As per the argument Ld CIT DR, this issue has been dealt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Revenue s Appeal (ITA No. 3273/Ahd/ 2002) 11 Revenue s Ground No. 1 is reproduced below: 1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of ₹ 50,00,000/- made on account of payment made to Synergy Research Centre Pvt. Ltd. 11.1. It was noted by the A.O. that a sum of ₹ 40,00,000/- was paid to Synergy Research Centre P.Ltd. On query the explanation of the assessee was as under, only relevant portion reproduced:- 1. It is once again repeated that Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited (SPIL) never acquired the shares of TDPL. The amalgamation of TDPL with SPIL was not a cover up for any acquisition of shares but an actual amalgamation as is evident from various events post amalgamation also. In fact one of the major purposes of the amalgamation/alliance with TDPL was to leverage the technical expertise of Dadhas in areas relating to oncology etc. where SPILS existing research was not fully developed. After careful perusal of detailed submissions made by us before the Honourable CIT(A), the Honourable CIT(Appeals) has concluded that the assessee did not acquire the shares of TDPL and that the Amalgamation of TDPL with SPIL was genuine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has would give discount 20%. It is her that role of SRCL comes into picture this entity not having any prior role is brought into existence and part of consideration is passed on to said concern in garb of purchasing / advance towards research and knowhow. This amount is utilised by Dadhas and is recovered by them as tax free because SRCL gets exemption u/s. 80IA (4A) on whole of this amount received as consideration / additional advance. . As discussed in block assessment order there is no evidence to prove that the technical knowhow claimed to have been purchased from SRCL was infact developed there and simultaneously could not have been developed at Research Facilities available in assessee s own entities which are having world class research facilities with advanced capabilities. Keeping in view this background, it is clear that the payment to SRCL was not for purpose of scientific research etc. but for a different purpose. Accordingly ₹ 40 lac paid is held for non-genuine purposes and is disallowed. Since assessee had claimed weighted deduction @ 125% on same. Accordingly ₹ 50,00,000/- is disallowed and added to total income. 11.3. First Appellate Au ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /1998, order dated 16/11/2007, wherein the core issue was decided in favour of the assessee on the ground that the amalgamation being approved by the Hon ble High Court, hence that process was not a colourable device. The ld.AR has placed reliance on the decision of ITAT B Bench Ahmedabad pronounced in the case of DCIT vs. Aditya Medisales Ltd. Bearing IT(SS) 95/AHD/2011 for the Block period AY 1988-89 to 7/12/1998, order dated 31/05/2007, wherein facts were narrated as under:- 16. The facts relating to ground No.2, and Ground No.3 are that Tamilnadu Dadha Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (TDPL) had amalgamated with Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited (SPIL). TDPL was jointly promoted by DADHA family of Chennai and Tamilnadu Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. (TIDCO) with equity holdings of 25% and 26% respectively. In the beginning, it was proposed that SPIL would purchase the shares in TDPL from the Dadhas. The Dadhas would also purchase the shares held by TIDCO in TDPL and the same would be sold to SPIL. However, the plan of purchasing the shares from Dadhas was later rejected. SPIL and the assessee company submitted that the purchase transaction was not carried out and TDPL am ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee company. According to A.O. the modus operandi was as under:- During the course of search as discussed earlier various evidences were found which revealed that the assessee company individually and as a group had created various devices by virtue of which they had transferred sale consideration particularly the premium amount of ₹ 200/- per share to the promoters of M/s. TDPL the company which was later amalgamated with the Assessee company. One of the devices used by the assessee to move consideration from the books of assessee company to Dadha Group was through creation of two entities namely M/s. Antriksh and Dukan. These two entities controlled by Dadha Group where an additional level of agency created for the territories of Tamilnadu and Karnataka. Instead of earlier movement of goods which was being followed for all the years, goods being sold by SPIL to Aditya Medisales and thereafter distributed. Through these fictitious entities another level was created thereby the goods were claimed to have been transferred from SPIL to AML through these entities. In consideration of which it was claimed that these entities were being paid discount @ 5% of sales. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (v) The assessee has no explanation as to why against normal commission rate of 2% these two concerns were paid 5%. In fact as an afterthought and to somehow coverup the issue as is clear from the above reply assessee had itself stated that they have reduced the rate from 5% to 2% in F.Y 99-2000. This is an indicator that there is no basis and logic for even paying the commission rate and it was for the sole purpose of transferring the consideration with no services being offered. In view of above the discount paid to these concerns in post search period is disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee. Accordingly a sum of ₹ 13,88,590/- is added to the total income. 12.3. Ld. CIT(A) has accepted the explanation of the assessee especially under the circumstance when his predecessor had accepted the genuineness of the claim. He has directed to delete the addition of ₹ 13,88,590/-. Now the Revenue is in appeal. 12.4 Heard both the sides. Case record perused. Ld DR has placed reliance on the order of the A.O., while Ld AR has supported the view taken by Ld. CIT(A). Few decisions of the Tribunal have also been referred, namely; Aditya Medisales Ltd. (I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ir group but also in Dadha Group that if any single transaction eq. interest recovery by M/s. AML is seen it would give distored picture. Accordingly assessee consolidated account is prepared after 7-12-98. In case of these individuals representing sum total of transaction which assessee group had with Dadha Group from and applying agreement condition following situation of interest payable as on 31-3-99 emerges Interest payable for post search period. S. Mohanchand Dadha ₹ 9,64,841/- M. Mahendra Dadha ₹ 4,325/- M. Maherchand Dadha ₹ 6,68,074/- 13.2. When the matter was carried before the First Appellate Authority it was noted that there was no evidence which would indicate that Interest was to be paid to Dadhas for post search period. The addition was deleted as under: 22. The Assessing Officer has not been able to bring to light any evidence or support which would indicate that the interest was paid to Dadhas in post search period. An addition can be made only on the basis of specific finding supporting such addition. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wledged that there was savings in turnover tax in the state of TamilNadu as a result of the appointment by the said firms. The Assessing Officer having accepted in part the business benefit of the appointment of the said firms, as distributors cannot in the same breadth question the other part Even otherwise, it is seen that the Assessing Officer has considered trade advances given by the Assessee to the individual members of the Dadha family as advances in the ordinary course of business. Thus, even if the advances were given in the guise of a trade advance, the same would still be considered as for the purpose of business. Further we noted that the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders (supra) has clearly stated that if the business considerations require, interest free funds can be advanced. Since the commercial expediency cannot be doubted in the case of the Assessee. We find no reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A) and accordingly we confirm the order of the CIT(A) on this ground. 13.4. Since in the past a consistent view had been taken that once the Revenue had accepted the business decision of appointment of the said firms then in the same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y CIT(A) Baroda vide order dated 01/06/2001 (Appeal No. CAB/IV-166/2000-01) had not upheld such additions being not based upon some incriminating evidence. The third point for our consideration was that it was merely presumed by the A.O. that even for the post search period the Solvent might have been sold on the same rates. But the basic question is that when even for search period the impugned addition did not survive on account of lack of evidence then how such presumption could be approved for the post search period. The reasoning appears to be convincing especially when no contrary material is available on record form the side of the Revenue. This ground of the Revenue is therefore dismissed. 15. Revenue s Ground No.5 reads as under:- 5. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition made on account of DEPB sale for 80IA deduction. 15.1 It was noted by the A.O. that the sale/purchase of DEPB licenses was carried out at Mumbai but transferred the profit to the accounts of Silvasa Unit with the purpose to claim higher deduction. It was also observed that such profit was not derived from the manufacturing activity. Hence the amount of ₹ 9, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Machinery and Data Processing Equipments of Silvasa Unit. However in respect of other assets depreciation was claimed. So the A.O. had commented that the purpose was to retain higher WDV as long as the Silvasa Unit was enjoying tax holiday u/s 80-IA. Through this method on one hand a higher claim of deduction u/s 80IA was made and on the other hand retained higher WDV to get large depreciation when the tax holiday period got over and the assessee started enjoying taxable income. Then the A.O. had discussed the legal position by comparing the old and new provisions of Sec. 32 vis-a-vis amendment introduced in the Finance Act 2001 providing for compulsory allowance of depreciation w.e.f. 1.4.2002. Finally it was concluded that the depreciation was to be allowed of ₹ 1,26,50,718/- in respect of Silvasa Unit and to be deducted from the business profit. 16.2. On this issue Ld. CIT(A) has held that the provision of compulsory allowance of depreciation is applicable w.e.f. 1.4.2002 by making it mandatory u/s 32 of the Act. Reliance was placed on Mahindra Mills 243 ITR 56 (SC) and held that the A.O. was not justified in compulsorily granting depreciation. 16.3. Heard both the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... affirm the findings of CIT(A) and dismiss this ground of the Revenue. 18. Revenue s Ground Nos.8, 9 10 read as under:- Ground No.8:- The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in allowing consideration of gross interest for computing profit of business for working of deduction under section 80HHC. Ground No.9:- The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in allowing consideration of gross lease rent for computing profit of business for working of deduction under section 80HHC. Ground No.10 :- The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in allowing consideration of gross operational charges covered for computing profit of the business for working of deduction under section 80HHC. 18.1. All these three grounds are inter-connected and covered by a decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of ACG Associated Capsules Pvt.Ltd. reported at 343 ITR 89(SC). In respect of the computation of the interest for the purpose of deduction u/s.80HHC of the Act, the AO has reduced 90% of the gross interest for claiming the deduction. According to AO, the legal requirement of section 80HHC is to deduct 90% of gross receipt. However, ld.CIT(A) was of the view that the ne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tood covered by these decisions of the Hon ble Supreme Court, hence the view taken by the ld.CIT(A) is hereby endorsed and the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed. 19. Revenue s Ground No.11 reads as under:- The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in allowing adjustment to trading export profit on account of export promotion expenses of ₹ 17,40,000/-. 19.1. The assessee had incurred export promotion expenses both for its own products and the products which were traded. It was noted by the AO that while working the computation u/s.80HHC, the assessee had allocated an amount of ₹ 15.81 lacs from other export promotional expenses . The AO was not convinced and bifurcated the same by assigning the following reason:- (iii) Adjustments to trading export profits: Assessee company had incurred export promotion expenses both for its own products and that in which it has traded. In working of 80HHC it is seen that assessee had allocated an amount of ₹ 15.81 lac from other export promotional expenses. This has been done by the assessee on the basis of clear-cut identifiable expenses relating to trading which as per assessee was primarily in only t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ished accurate details of the direct expenses attributable to turnover of the products including the overseas sales promotional expenses. Since those were new evidences, which were entertained by the ld.CIT(A), therefore it is demanded by the ld.CIT-DR to give an opportunity to examine those evidences which were entertained by the ld.CIT(A) at the back of the AO. Considering the said preliminary technical objection of the assessee, we hereby restore this ground to the file of ld.CIT(A) with the direction to give opportunity to both the sides and then decide as per law. In the result, this ground of the Revenue may be treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 20. Revenue s Ground No.12 reads as under:- The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in reducing deduction under section 80-IA. 20.1. The assessee had claimed deduction u/s.80IA of the Act of ₹ 40,13,40,021/- in respect of profits of Silvassa Units. It was noted by the AO that the assessee had not allocated certain expenses. After assigning few reasons, he has recomputed the eligible profit for the deduction u/s.80-IA and reduced the same to ₹ 38,23,04,924/-. The expenses which were allocated were R D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
