TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1154X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the year, under appeal, are same as in AY 2003-04. CIT(A) has by following the order of the Tribunal as well as the earlier order of the Ld. CIT(A) in respect of assessment year 2003-04, as aforesaid has rightly held that disallowance made by the AO was not confirmed even on the alternative reasoning which the AO had taken in AY 2003-04 and allowed the appeal of the assessee, which does not need any interference. There is no illegality or infirmity in the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issues in dispute, hence, we uphold the action of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and reject the ground raised by the Revenue. - ITA No. 1203/Del/2016 - - - Dated:- 14-2-2019 - Sh. H.S. Sidhu, Judicial Member And Shri Prashant Maharishi, Accou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anufacturing and sale of confectionery products like bubble gum, chewing gum, candies etc. Besides this, the assessee has also carried out certain trading activities. AO noted that no one trade with itself and the assessee has shown artificial profits in gum base unit. Therefore, he held that there cannot be any profit or loss in gumbased unit and allocated its profit to three units to whom the gumbased unit had transferred its products for captive consumption. The AO first worked out allocation of the profits, product wise in the ratio of quantity of that product and the total quantity of all products produced. He then allocated the profit of each product, thus determined to the three units to whom the product of gumbased unit were tran ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in respect of gumbased unit was not allowed in the assessment year 2003-04 and the matter was travelled to the ITAT, who vide its order dated 19.12.2008 has restored the matter to the file of the AO and pursuant to the directions of the Tribunal, the AO passed the order against which the assessee moved before the Ld. CIT(A) in the second round of appeal, who vide his impugned order dated 18.6.2012 has decided the issue in favour of the assessee and against the same, the Revenue filed the appeal before the Tribunal, who dismissed the Revenue s appeal vide its order dated 9.10.2015 for the assessment year 2003-04. Therefore, by respectfully the tribunal s order dated 9.10.2015, the present Ld. CIT(A) vide his order dated 1.12.2015 has held t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aforesaid order of the Tribunal dated 09.10.2015. In the assessment order under appeal, the AO did not make any analysis of the transfer price and has simply held that artificial profits in the case of Buddi Unit, have been created. Since it is a settled issue that the deduction 80IB is to be allowed, even if the goods produced by any eligible unit are capitively consumed, the AO observation that Buddi Unit is not eligible for deduction u/s. 80IB was not upheld by the Ld. CIT(A). As regards, section 80IA(8) and the transfer price of the goods, the facts in the year, under appeal, are same as in AY 2003-04. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) has by following the order of the Tribunal as well as the earlier order of the Ld. CIT(A) in respect of asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
