9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 446X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeals sought to set aside the impugned orders both dated 22.11.2013 qua the assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-III, New Delhi on the grounds inter alia that:- GROUNDS OF APPEAL (AY 2009-10) "1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the lower authorities erred in law not allowing deduction U/s 80-IC on incentive granted under Vishesh Krishi and Gram Udyog Yojana (VKGUY) of Rs. 1,17,83,416/- allowed to compensate high transport cost incurred by the company. 2. It is contended that incentives granted under Vishesh Krishi and Gram Udyog Yojana (VKGUY) have a direct, intrinsic and first degree nexus with the business operations of the appellant. 3. It is contended that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red by the appellant and thus the net effect thereof on the profits is nil. 4. The lower authorities erred in holding that the profits generated out of such incentive are not operational profits. 5. The lower authorities erred in holding that source of subsidy / profits are not the business but the schemes central government. 6. Without prejudice to above, it is stated that the lower authorities erred in holding that incentive given under Vishesh Krishi and Gram Udyog Yojana (VKGUY) with an objective to generate employment and promote economic growth is not a capital receipt. 7. The lower authorities erred in holding that the said incentive being capital in nature is not to be deducted while arriving Book profits under section 115JB. 8 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e must be a direct nexus between the profit and gains and the industrial undertaking and thereby made an addition of Rs. 1,17,83,416/- & Rs. 1,35,55,206/- qua AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 respectively. 4. Assessee carried the matter before the ld. CIT (A) by way of filing an appeal who has dismissed the appeals. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee has come up before the Tribunal by way of filing the present appeal. 5. We have heard the ld. Authorized Representatives of the parties to the appeal, gone through the documents relied upon and orders passed by the revenue authorities below in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case. GROUNDS NO.1 TO 5 OF ITA NO.346/DEL/2014 GROUNDS NO.1 TO 5 OF ITA NO.347/DEL/2014 6. AO/CIT (A) disallowed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble for deduction u/s 80IC?" 10. However, it is contended by the ld. AR for the assessee that in the preceding years, transport subsidy is being treated as income derived from industrial undertaking and assessee has been allowed deduction u/s 80IC. This view has not been controverted by the revenue. Keeping in view the undisputed fact that this is the 5th year of claim made by the assessee u/s 80IC and the assessee has been continuously allowed deduction u/s 80IC qua transport subsidy and AO/CIT(A) have not brought on record any reason for departing from the previous years as on the same set of facts pertaining to the year under assessment, the issue is required to be restored to the AO to decide afresh in the light of the orders passed i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
