Contact us   Feedback   Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (2) TMI 511 - ITAT MUMBAI

2016 (2) TMI 511 - ITAT MUMBAI - [2016] 46 ITR (Trib) 551 - Claim of deduction under section 10B - Held that:- the issue in dispute is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the orders of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for preceding assessment years. From the material on record, we find that this is a recurring dispute between the assessee and the Department right from the assessment year 2003–04. The Assessing Officer in the preceding assessment years had disallowed assessee’s claim .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

9. Against the orders of the learned Commissioner (Appeals), the Department preferred appeals before the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) by . dismissing the appeal by the Department in respect of all these assessment years. Thus we uphold the decision of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in allowing assessee’s claim of deduction under section 10B.- Decided in favour of assessee

MAT - Exclusion of income of SEZ Unit while compu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ion - Held that:- Only reason for which the Assessing Officer has treated the amount as deemed dividend is both the companies have some common shareholders cannot be a reason for treating the amount as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e). As held by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) since the Assessing Officer has failed to establish that assessee is the beneficial shareholder or even a shareholder, provisions of section 2(22)(e) cannot be applied. Also the issue in dispute is squarely cover .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ant Mamdeo PER SAKTIJIT DEY, J.M. Instant appeal preferred by the Department is directed against the order dated 20th February 2014, passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals)-16, Mumbai, for the assessment year 2009-10. 2. In grounds no.1 and 2, the Department has challenged the decision of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in allowing assessee s claim of deduction under section 10B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"). 3. Briefly stated the facts are, assessee a compa .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

1st April 2007, by the order of the Hon'ble High Court and its business got transferred to the assessee with all assets and liabilities as a going concern. For the assessment year under consideration, assessee filed its return of income claiming deduction of an amount of ₹ 6,24,65,464 under section 10B of the Act in respect of profit earned from its SEEPZ unit. In the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer found that assessee s claim of deduction under section 10B of t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ditions of section 10B, it is entitled to claim deduction. It was also submitted that the Tribunal has upheld assessee s claim of deduction under section 10B while dismissing Department s appeal in assessment year 2003-04 to 2006-07. Though, the Assessing Officer did not dispute the fact that assessee s claim of deduction under section 10B was allowed by the Tribunal in the preceding assessment years but observing that the Department has challenged the decision of the Tribunal in appeal preferre .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ding assessment years under similar facts and . circumstances relied upon the same and allowed assessee s claim of deduction. 5. We have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the material available on record. Learned Representative for both the parties admitted before us that the issue in dispute is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the orders of the Tribunal in assessee s own case for preceding assessment years. From the material on record, we find that this is a rec .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s) in the preceding assessment years. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) allowed assessee s claim of deduction under section 10B in the assessment years 2003-04 to 2006-07 and 2008-09. Against the orders of the learned Commissioner (Appeals), the Department preferred appeals before the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) by . dismissing the appeal by the Department in respect of all these assessment years. In the latest order passed for asses .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

appeal by the department before Tribunal the order of ld. CIT(A) were confirmed by the Tribunal while passing order in ITA Nos. 3370, 7738, 7196/Mum/2007-08 vide order dated 13.10.10. Therefore, we see no reason to interfere in the finding of ld. CIT(A) which are in consonance with the order of Tribunal for earlier 3 years i.e. from A.Y. 2003-04 to A.Y. 2005-06. Even the AO has mentioned in his order that in earlier year the deduction was denied by the AO and ld. CIT(A) has allowed the issue in .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he order of CIT(A) for the year under consideration and reject the ground of the department. 6. Facts being materially identical in the impugned assessment year, respectfully following the decision of the co-ordinate bench, as referred to above, we uphold the decision of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in allowing assessee s claim of deduction under section 10B. Grounds no.1 and 2, are, therefore, dismissed. . 7. Grounds no.3 to 5, are on the common issue of exclusion of income of SEZ Unit wh .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ing that any claim not made by way of a revised return of income cannot be accepted. In this context, he relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v/s Goetz India Ltd., [2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC). He also held that even on merit also, assessee s claim is not allowable since as per the provisions of the Act, MAT provisions are applicable to a company on the income derived from any business or services either from special economic zone unit or any other unit. Accordingly, he re .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

section 115JB. 10. We have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the material available on record. Learned Representatives of both the parties agreed that the issue in dispute is squarely covered by the decision of the Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, in Genesys International Corporation Ltd. (supra). On a careful reading of the aforesaid decision of the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal, it is found that the Tribunal, while deciding identical nature of dispute, has held as under:- 20. We .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

gy Par (STP) • Export Oriented Units (EOUs) By Special Economic Zone Act, 2005 w.e.f 10.2.2006, a new section 10AA has been inserted which provide exemption to the units located in SEZ. Section 2 of SEZ Act, defines SEZ as under: . (za)Special Economic Zone - means each Special Economic Zone notified under the proviso to sub-section (4) of section 3 and sub-section(1) of section 4(including Free Trade and Warehousing Zone) and includes an existing Special Economic Zone 21. It is evident fro .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Zones Act shall apply to such existing SEZ units. It is also observed that by the SEZ Act, sub-section (6) to section 115JB was also inserted providing that provisions of section 115JB shall not apply to the income accrued or arisen on or after 1.4.2005 from any business carried on, or services rendered, by an entrepreneur or a Developer, in a Unit or Special Economic Zone, as the case may be. Hence, income of units located SEZ will not be included while computing book profit for the purpose of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

essment Year: 2009-2010 applicability of provisions of MAT in view of sub-section(6) of the Act. The contention of ld D.R. that assessee will not be entitled to get the benefit u/s.115JB(6) of the Act as assessee has claimed deduction u/s.10A of the Act is to be rejected for the reason that section 115JB (6) does not refer section 10A or section 10AA but it only refer that provisions of section 115JB will not apply to the income accrued or arisen on or after 1.4.2005 from any business carried on .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Provided that the provisions of this sub-section shall cease to have effect in respect of an previous year relevant to the assessment year commencing on or after the 1st day of April, 2012. …. …… 22. Hence, we hold that authorities below were not justified to include the book profit in respect of SEZ unit at Mumbai of the assessee while computing book profit u/s.115JB of the Act for assessment year 2008-09. Therefore, we reverse the orders of authorities below by holding tha .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ectfully following the consistent view of the Tribunal, as referred to above, we uphold the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) by dismissing the ground raised by the Department. 11. Grounds no.6 and 7 relate to deletion of addition of deemed dividend of ₹ 4,93,765, made by the Assessing Officer under section 2(22)(e). . 12. Briefly stated the facts are, in the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer verifying the balance sheet of the assessee as on 31st March 2009, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

7, from GTL. He, therefore, called upon the assessee to explain why the amount received should not be treated as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e). Though, the assessee made detail submissions explaining the reason why the amount of ₹ 4,93,767, cannot be treated as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e), but the Assessing Officer did not find merit in the submissions of the assessee. He observed that as both the assessee company and GTL, are having common shareholders the conditions o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sidering the submissions of the assessee, found that the assessee is not a shareholder of GTL. Further, the amount of ₹ 4,93,765, cannot be considered to be in the nature of loan or advance as it is pursuant to transfer entry passed by the order of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court consequent to demerger of BPO division of GTL. The learned Commissioner (Appeals), therefore, relying upon the decision of the Tribunal, Mumbai Special Bench, in ACIT v/s Bhaumik Colour Pvt. Ltd., [2009] .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version