TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1283X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n treating both the units as same unit. Merely because one unit is treated as branch unit for administrative convenience, it does not mean that both the units are one and the same. In view of the above, both the authorities below are not justified in treating both the units as one and the same. This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that both main and branch unit are separate and independent one, therefore, the authorities below are not justified in rejecting the claim of the assessee u/s 80IB of the Act. Accordingly, the orders of the authorities below are set aside and the Assessing Officer is directed to allow the claim of the assessee u/s 80IB of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 1015/Mds/2014, ITA No. 399/Mds/201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... machinery of Unit-II as on 31.3.2002 is ₹ 92,97,315/-. Therefore, according to the ld. Representative, as on today the cost of asset does not exceed ₹ 3 crores, so the assessee continues to be a small scale industry eligible for deduction u/s 80IB of the Act. The Assessing Officer simply referring to provisions of section 80IB(3) of the Act found that the cost of plant and machinery is not less than ₹ 1 crores therefore, the assessee is not eligible for deduction u/s 80IB of the Act. The certificate issued by the Industries Department of Government of Tamilnadu was not considered by the lower authorities. Referring to the provisions of sections 25 26 of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, the ld. Repr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it cannot be allowed. According to the ld. DR, both units are owned and controlled by the assessee therefore, the assessee cannot be construed as having separate and independent unit for the purpose of claiming deduction u/s 80IB. The ld. DR placed his reliance on the decision of this Tribunal in M/s Caress Beauty Care Products Pvt. Ltd vs CIT in I.T.A.No. 79/Mds/2011 dated 15.1.2013 , a copy of which is filed by the ld. DR. 5. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and also perused the material available on record. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of the assessee on the ground that the unit at 55-D SIDCO Industrial Estate, Ambattur, is only a branch unit. The Assessing Officer has also observed that even assum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ious year does not exceed ₹ 3 crores, it is entitled for deduction u/s 80IB of the Act. In the case before the Hyderabad Bench of this Tribunal the investment in the plant and machinery was more than ₹ 4 crores therefore, the Tribunal found that the assessee is not entitled for deduction u/s 80IB. In the case before us, the investment in the plant and machinery does not exceed ₹ 3 crores in both units of the assessee, therefore, the decision of the Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal is in favour of the assessee. In other words, so long as the investment in plant and machinery does not exceed ₹ 3 crores, the assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 80IB of the Act. In this case, admittedly, the investment in plant and mach ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ficer further observed that production was commenced on 20.10.1997 and Expansion-I was on 2.12.2007. In fact, the Expansion-I was on 2.12.2000 as mentioned in the Certificate of Registration and not on 2.12.2007 as observed by the Assessing Officer. Merely because the second unit was shown as branch unit or expanded unit, it cannot be said that the branch unit is not an independent unit. In fact, the injection moulded plastic components are manufactured at 55-D, SIDCO Industrial unit. This method is not used in the main unit. This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that both units are functioning differently even though the end product in both units are plastic components. Therefore, both the authorities below are not justified in treati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
