TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 115X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n'ble High Court, is concerned, no contrary decision was brought to our notice, therefore, the order of the Tribunal as on date, stands. The assessee setup the industrial undertaking in industrially backward the state, wherein, certain benefits are extended to the assessee. The operation of Mumbai unit continued during the Financial Year-2003-04 at the normal scale. In the new unit, at Daman, new plant and machinery was installed during the first year of operation and further new additions were made during the Financial Year 2004-05. It is also noted that for Assessment Year 2005-06, the order of the CIT (Appeal) was affirmed by the Tribunal and the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed. Against the said order, the miscellaneous application f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issioner of Income Tax (Appeal) for ready reference and analysis:- 1.3.1 I have carefully considered the submissions and contention of the Ld. AR of the appellant and also carefully gone through the facts and explanation given by the Ld. AR of the appellant as well as the Ld. AO. Similar issue has arisen in the assessee's own case for AY 2010-11 wherein my Ld. Predecessor vide order No. CIT(A)-17/IT112/2012-13, dated 09.05.2013 in para No. 4.2 and 6.2 has decided the issues as under:. 4.2 I have. considered the submission of the appellant and the order of the A 0 The CIT(A)-7, Mumbai in the appellant's own case for AY 2010-11 on the issue of claim u/s 8019 vide its order No CIT(A)-17/IT-112/2012-13, dated 95 2013 in par ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as also the expenses concerned Clearly reveals that the Daman Unit had nothing to do with the unit at Mumbai. Thus, it can be concluded that the appellant had requisite evidence and which had been placed before the AO and which has not been rebutted in the assessment order, clearly showing that no asset had been transferred from the Sakinaka Unit at Mumbai to the nezv Unit at Daman and therefore, it is apparent that the AO committed an error in denying the deduction u/s. 80IB. In may view, the appellant is entitled to the 'deduction as claimed. The AO shall recomputed the income. accordingly. The aforesaid grounds are accordingly allowed in favour of the assessee. 3.4 The disallowance in the current year has also been based upo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed gross total income at ₹ 16,35,15,381/- and 30% of the same i.e. 4,04,93,929/- was claimed as deduction u/s 80IB of the Act. The Ld. Assessing Officer was asked to submit the necessary details like bills of plant and machinery, which were put to use. The assessee vide letter dated 25/11/2013 submit the justification for the claimed deduction, however, the Ld. Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the claim and disallowed the same. On appeal before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), as reproduced hereinabove, the claim of the assessee was allowed, which is under challenge before this Tribunal. We find that for claiming the deduction u/s 80IB of the Act, the assessee has to fulfil the conditions contained in sub-section(2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
