9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1767X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of substantial expansion is allowable only to the undertaking which were existing as on 07.01.2003." 3. Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee e-filed the return of income on 30.09.2013 declaring an income of Rs. 10,12,840/-. Later on, the case was selected for scrutiny. The AO during the course of assessment proceedings noticed that the assessee had claimed deduction u/s 80IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) @ 100% for the year under consideration as 8th year being substantial expansion done by the assessee during the financial year 2010-11 relevant to the assessment year 2011- 12. The assessee furnished photocopies of bills for purchase of machinery during the financial year 2010-11 for Rs. 3,2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... years and thereafter whenever it carried out the substantial expansion of the same unit then it could have claimed 100% deduction for next 5 years. The AO, however, did not find merit in the submissions of the assessee by observing that in the assessee's own case for the preceding year, the ITAT Chandigarh had rejected the plea of the assessee for claiming substantial expenses. Accordingly, the claim of the assessee was denied by observing in para 1.10 of the assessment order dated 10.12.2015 which read as under: "1.10 From the above discussion, it can be safely concluded that the benefit of substantial expansion is available only to the existing units i.e. the units that existed and were operational as on 07.01.2003 in order to make the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4-05 to 2008-09. In this background, we find nothing wrong with the order of Ld. CIT(A) and we uphold the same. Accordingly, assessee's appeal is dismissed." 5. Now the assessee is in appeal. The ld. Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below but could not rebut the aforesaid findings given by the ld. CIT(A). 6. In his rival submissions the ld. DR strongly supported the impugned order passed and further submitted that the ld. CIT(A) followed the decision of the ITAT Chandigarh Bench in the case of Hycron Electronics Vs ITO in ITA No. 798/Chd./2012 and 374/Chd./2014 wherein the facts involved were identical as are in the assessee's case, therefore, there is no merit in the appeal of the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
