2017 (8) TMI 39

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n u/s.80IB without considering the fact and disregarding the provisio of section 80IB(2)(i) that the business of the assessee was set up by splitting up or reconstruction of the business of an existing concern having the same nature of business and manufacturing similar items controlled by the same proprietor ? (ii)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is correct in confirming the order of the Ld.CIT(A) in allowing deduction u/s.80IB without appreciating the factual evidence of bogus and fabricated purchases and sale with two arms of the same business of the assessee ? (iii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Income Tax Appel .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tion 80IB without appreciating the factual evidence of bogus and fabricated purchases and sale with two arms of the same business of the assessee. 4 With regard to Question No.3, the learned counsel accedes that for the earlier assessment year the said question is decided against the Revenue and the appeal filed before this court is dismissed. 5 The learned counsel further submits that it was erroneous on the part of the Tribunal to direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of Rs. 11 Crore made on account of business receipts from Shri Rasiklal Dhariwal. It failed to consider that the confessional statement recorded under the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act 1999, is an admissible evidence under Section 18 of the said .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nt appellant and the same need not be considered. For earlier year the claim of the assessee of carrying out independent business has been accepted. 10 As far as ground no.2 is concerned, infact, the said issue did not arise. Still, the Tribunal has considered the genuineness of these transactions and upon consideration of the transactions, it has observed that such transactions are genuine transactions. The said finding is a finding of fact. As far as Question No.3 is concerned, in the earlier assessment year, it is already decided in favour of the assessee and the appeal filed against the said order is dismissed by this court. 11 With regard to the Question No.4, it has been observed by the Tribunal that the basis on which the Assessing .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X