9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 454X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... consideration: " Whether in the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Tribunal erred in restricting the Appellant's claim of deduction under section 80IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to Rs. 12,03,773/, invoking the provisions of section 80IA(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?". 3 This Appeal was on board on 23rd January, 2017. During the course of hearing for admission, it was pointed out by the Appellant that the impugned order restricted the deduction under Section 80IB of the Act by relying upon Section 80IA(10) of the Act. This, without considering the fact that the Appellant's contention that condition precedent for its application, is not present. We were inclined to admit Appeal. However, at that time, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aimed deduction at the net profit ratio of 35% of its Jammu unit. However, the Assessing Officer found that the profit ratio of the unit belonging to Appellant's wife at Valsad was 5%. Therefore, the Assessing Officer on invocation of Section 80IA(10) of the Act, taking the net profit ratio of the Valsad unit of his wife, adopted 10% net profit ratio to allow deduction under Section 80IB of the Act. 8 Being aggrieved, the Appellant carried the issue in Appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. By an order dated 18th July, 2012, the CIT(A) held that Section 80IA(8) and (10) of the Act, cannot be invoked to restrict the deduction claimed under Section 80IB of the Act. This for the reason that there is no arrangement be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... overlooked by the Tribunal while disposing of the Appeal. 11 We note the fact that the CIT(A) has rendered a finding that there is nothing on record to indicate that there is any arrangement between the Appellant's Jammu unit and his wife's unit at Valsad to generate more than ordinary profits or any transfer of goods and/or services inter se, below the market price, resulting in inflated profits to the Appellant's Jammu unit. Even before us, nothing has been shown by the Revenue that there is any business transacted between Appellant's unit at Jammu and his wife's unit at Valsad which resulted in inflating the profits being earned by the Appellant or that there is any transaction between them. The Tribunal has without ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
