TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 460X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .A. No.726/M/2012, I.T.A. No.4087/M/2012, I.T.A. No.5995/M/2013 - - - Dated:- 30-3-2016 - SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Assessee : Shri P.J. Pardiwala, AR For The Revenue : Shri K.P. R.R. Murty, DR ORDER PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM: There are seven appeals under consideration. Out of them, five appeals are filed by the Revenue and two appeals are filed by the assessee. Since, the issues raised in these appeals are identical / inter-connected, therefore, for the sake of convenience, they are clubbed, heard together and disposed of this consolidated order. Appeal wise adjudication is given in the following paragraphs of this order. 2. The common issue raised in all the Revenue‟s appeals relates to the allowability of deduction / exemption u/s 10A of the Act. For the sake of reference, we reproduce the grounds of the Revenue for the AY 2007-2008, which read as under:- 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld CIT (A) erred in allowing exemption u/s 10A amounting to ₹ 3,04,28,384/- without appreciating the fact that the assessee had not manufactured / prod ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons specified in the said section 10A or similar provisions. AO is prevented from getting into these years in subsequent years such as AY 2006-07 and others. We have also considered the fact that the AY 2005-06 was not reopened for the reassessment or u/s 148 or revision u/s 263 of the Act etc as the case may be. Therefore, respectfully following the said judgment of the High Court (supra), without going to the merits of the case, we find the argument of the Ld Counsel should be considered and the relevant grounds should be allowed in favour of the assessee. Accordingly, we uphold the order of the CIT (A) and the grounds raised by the Revenue for the AYs 2006-07 and 2007-08 are dismissed. 6. In the result, appeals of the Revenue for the AYs 2006-07 and 2007- 08 are dismissed. ITA No.726/M/2012 (AY 2008-2009) (By Revenue) ITA No.41/M/2012 (AY 2008-2009) (By assessee) 7. These are the cross appeals filed by the assessee and the Revenue. In the appeal filed by the Revenue, the only issue raised relates to the claim of exemption u/s 10A of the Act. Revenue is aggrieved against the decision of the CIT (A), who decided the issue on merits against the Revenue. This is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... igible and non-eligible units based on the turnover as against the actual basis adopted by the assessee. Relevant facts include that the assessee has an eligible Teledyne‟ unit and ineligible non-teledyne‟ unit. So far as the unit specific expenses are concerned, there is no dispute. However, regarding the common expenses, assessee adopted different methods depending on the nature of accounts debited to the P L Account involved. As per the working, the exemption claimed u/s 10A by the assessee in the return of income works out to ₹ 2,62,73,762/-. In the assessment, AO adopted the turnover basis‟ uniformly for allocating such common expenses. As per the AO, the allowable expenditure u/s 10A works out to ₹ 2,51,72,542/-. The difference derived by the AO works out to ₹ 11.1 laks (rounded of). The argument of the Ld Counsel for the assessee on this issue revolves around on the fact that the identical claims were made in earlier AYs and the subsequent AYs and they were accepted without any mutation in the assessments. AO has not given any reason to why the basis adopted by the assessee is erroneous and unsustainable in law. Basing on the principl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed. Accordingly, Ground no.2 raised by the assessee is allowed. 14. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. ITA No.4087/M/2012 (AY 2009-2010) (By Revenue) ITA No.2816/M/2012 (AY 2009-2010) (By assessee) 15. These two cross appeals are filed by the Revenue and the assessee for the AY 2009-2010. The issues raised in the Revenue‟s appeal are already adjudicated by us while deciding the appeals for the AYs 2006-07; 2007-08 and 2008-2009 in the above paragraphs of this order, considering the analogy of the ratio laid down in the judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court in the case of Paul Brothers (supra). Therefore, considering the commonality of the issues raised in the instant Revenue‟s appeal and the appeals decided by us in the above paras of this order, we are of the opinion, the grounds raised in the present appeal are required to be dismissed. 16. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 17. Regarding the assessee‟s appeal for the AY 2009-10, we notice that the only issue raised in the appeal relates to the applicability of provisions of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
