TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 322X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ider the claim of deduction u/s.80G of the Act after verifying the donation receipts along with approval u/s.80G(5)(vi) of the Act. The Assessing Officer shall decide the issue as per fact and law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. - ITA No.963/PUN/2013, C.O. No.72/PUN/2014, ITA No.1799/PUN/2014, ITA No.1821/PUN/2014, ITA No.591/PUN/2015 - - - Dated:- 28-12-2016 - MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI R.K. PANDA, AM For The Assessee : Shri Pramod Achuthan, Shri Swapnil Bafna and Shri Rajendra Agiwal For The Respondent : Shri Rajeev Kumar Shri Suhas Kulkarni ORDER PER R.K.PANDA, AM : ITA No.963/PUN/2013 filed by the Revenue and CO No.72/PN/2014 filed by the assessee are directed against the order dated 06-02-2013 of the CIT(A)-IT/TP, Pune relating to Assessment Year 2007-08. ITA No.1799/PUN/14 filed by the Revenue and ITA No.1821/PUN/2014 filed by the assessee are cross appeals and are directed against the order dated 28-07-2014 of the CIT(A)-IT/TP, Pune relating to Assessment Year 2009-10. ITA No.591/PUN/2015 filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 24-02-2013 passed by the Assessing Officer u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144C o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 99 6 Pune IT Park Office No.4th Floor 5th Floor, 6th Floor 27-06-2001 A 10-01-2002 7 Pune IT Park, Bldg.B 34, Aundh Road Oct., 2003 B 8 Godrej Castle Marine, Bund Garden Road, Ruby Hall March, 2004 A 9 Bind View Office, Mrss 5, B.J. Road, Near Sadhu Vaswani Chowk, Pune 05-11-2004 B 5. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee company has treated all the places as branches under Unit-A for which deduction u/s.10A had been claimed. However, the places as mentioned at Sl.No.7 and 9 above have been called Unit-B for which STPI approval for expansion was taken on 08-10-2003 and 05-11-2004 respectively. The assessee has called it separate undertaking and started claiming deduction u/s.10A from A.Y. 2004-05. He, therefore, asked the assessee to justify as to why deduction u/s.10A should not be disallowed considering that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... findings given by the Commissioner Appeals by concluding that merely because a new permission is obtained in relation to its unit, containing reference to the original license, this is not conclusive to demonstrate that the new unit is not a separate or independent unit. The Revenue challenged the order of the Tribunal and the Question No.14 which was raised on this issue reads as under : 4(A) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in upholding the assessee s claim for treating Unit-B as a separate and independent unit for the purpose of claiming deduction u/s.10A of the I.T. Act? 12. The Hon ble High Court answered the question by observing as under : 10. In relation to Question No.4A, what the Tribunal holds is that the Departmental Representative urged that the Assessing Officer was justified in holding that Unit-B could not be treated as independent Unit of the purpose of claim of deduction under section 10A of the IT Act. The finding of fact rendered by the Assessing Officer has been erroneously reversed by the First Appellate Authority. The intention of the Assessee was to claim Unit-B as a separate Unit. That is to enable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted that the AE of the assessee, based out of USA had applied for MAP with the competent authorities of USA. The competent authorities of India and USA have reached a conclusion on the MAP. Referring to the letter addressed by the DCIT, Circle-6, Pune dated 02-11-2016 he submitted that the DCIT had issued a letter to the assessee stating that he has received MAP Resolution for A.Y. 2006-07 to 2010-11 on 21-10-2016 and has requested the assessee to give its acceptance letter in this regard within a week of receipt of the letter. He submitted that the assessee has already given its acceptance to the proposed resolution under MAP to enable the Assessing Officer to give effect to the resolution agreed under MAP. The assessee would need to fulfil certain conditions as provided under Rule 44H of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Therefore the assessee would like to withdraw the cross objection filed by it. 16. So far as the appeal filed by the Revenue is concerned he submitted that although the CIT(A) has decided the issue in favour of the assessee, still the same also should be dismissed with a liberty to the Revenue to come back to the Tribunal in case the MAP is not accepted by the Reven ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he ground of appeal No.2 and 3 filed by the Revenue on the Transfer Pricing issue should be dismissed pursuant to acceptance of resolution reached under MAP with a liberty to Revenue to come back to the Tribunal in case they are aggrieved by the MAP. 25. After hearing both the sides and in the light of our observations at Para 18 of this order while deciding the appeal for A.Y. 2007-08, we accept the request of the assessee to withdraw its grounds relating to Transfer Pricing adjustment for A.Y. 2009-10. Similarly, the grounds of appeal No.2 and 3 raised by the Revenue are also dismissed with a liberty to the Revenue to come back to the Tribunal in case they are aggrieved by the MAP. Accordingly, the above grounds are dismissed. 26. Ground of appeal No.13 by the assessee relates to erroneous computation of interest u/s.234B of the I.T. Act. 27. After hearing both the sides, we are of the considered opinion that charging of interest u/s.234B is ma restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to compute the interest u/s.234B as per law after giving due opportunity of bearing heard to the assessee. We hold and direct accordingly. ITA No.591/PUN ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
