9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1685X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ITAT in the assessee's own case for the assessment year 2003-04 wherein the ITAT has found assessee as eligible for claiming deduction u/s 80IA on Unit-2 relating to manufacturing of micro nutrient fertilizers. The relevant para of the order of the ITAT in ITA No. 14/Ind/2013 dated 19.6.2013 is reproduced hereunder :- "4. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Before coming to any conclusion, we are reproducing hereunder the relevant portion of the order of the learned CIT(A) :- "4.4 I have carefully considered the submission of the appellant and facts of the case. As explained by the appellant, Unit-II was setup for manufacturing of micronutrient fertilizers during A.Y. 1997-98 and the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nit-II for manufacturing of micronutrient fertilizer, which was not an expansion of earlier unit and also fulfils other conditions of section 80IA(2) of the Act. Therefore, in view of the above, I am of the opinion that the appellant was eligible for claiming deduction u/s 80IA. Hence, the A.O. is directed to allow deduction u/s 80IA of Rs. 11,10,057/-. Accordingly, these grounds of appeal are allowed." 2.1. The facts, in brief, are that, during the relevant period, the assessee company was carrying on the business of formulation of pesticides and insecticides since 1973-74. The assessee set up a new unit in 1997-98 to manufacture micronutrient fertilizers and had been claiming deduction u/s 80IA since then which was allowed by the Depart ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is not mandatory rather it is directory and if the audit report is filed at any time before framing the assessment, the required conditions are considered to be fulfilled. Our view is fortified by the decision in CIT vs. ACE Multitaxes Systems (P) Ltd. (2009) 317 ITR 307 (Kar.); CIT vs. Medicaps 5 Limited (2010) 323 ITR 554 (MP); AKS Alloys Pvt. Ltd. (2012); 18 Taxman.com 25(Mad.); CIT vs. A.N. Arunachalam; 75 Taxman 529 (Mad.). The sum and substance of these decisions is that audit report can be filed with the revised return or at any stage up to framing of assessment. In view of these facts and judicial pronouncements, we find no justification to interfere with the impugned order. Our view is further fortified by the decision from Delhi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
