9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 671X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 80IC of the 1961 Act, was justified. 2. For Assessment Years (AY) 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11, the assessee had claimed interest expenditure for its exempt unit at Baddi [hereafter referred to as "the exempt unit"] for various sums. More than half of the amounts claimed were disallowed by the Assessing Officer (AO) for all the years on the premise that the assessee had wrongly proportioned the interest for the exempt unit vis-a-vis the non-exempt units. The AO cited Control & Switchgear Ltd. v. DCIT 66 DTR 166 (Del). CIT(A), however, noticed that the figures were segregated by the assessee, and that its contention with respect to utilisation of funds allocated by the Head Office, from its own funds, was justified. He, therefore, r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ocation of indirect expenditure of Baddi Unit in para No.4.1, 4.3 and 5.1 of the first appellate order and has upheld the principal of apportionment of common expenditure on the basis of sales by following the ratio of the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of Control & Switchgear Ltd. Vs. DCIT 66 DTR 166 (Del). The Hon'ble High Court in that decision (supra) has approved the apportionment of common expenditure between the unit eligible for deduction under section 80IC and non-eligible units on the basis of turnover where specific unit-wise detail of expenditure was not furnished before the lower authorities despite specific query to this effect. The ld. CIT (Appeals} has allowed a relief of Rs. 1,62,33,5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he preceding two assessment years to arrive at the opening figure of funds in use by the Baddi Unit. In absence of rebuttal of these material facts by the Revenue, we do not find reason to interfere with the first appellate order which is comprehensive and speaking meeting out the objections raised by the Assessing Officer in view of the submission of the assessee. The same is upheld. The ground Nos. 1 and 2 of the appeal are thus rejected. The appeal of the Department for the assessment year* 2010-11 is accordingly dismissed. 6.6 So far as the remaining appeals of the assessee on identical issue as raised in the appeal preferred by the Department are concerned, the parties have adopted similar arguments. The ld. AR submitted that the is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the assessment year 2009-10 is concerned, the ld. AR has not been able to improve its case before the Tribunal. We thus, uphold the action of the ld. CIT (Appeals). The ground No. 5 is accordingly rejected. 8. In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of the Department is dismissed." 3. As is evident, the AO as well as the lower appellate authorities took note of the decision in Control and Switchgear Ltd. (supra). In Control and Switchgear Ltd. (supra), the Court utilized the formula because the assessee could not indicate- in the facts of that case, the actual figures relatable to interest expenditure. In both the cases, the ITAT and the CIT(A) have considered the assessee's explanations and concluded tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
