TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 619X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tio laid down M/S. AARHAM SOFTRONICS [ 2019 (2) TMI 1285 - SUPREME COURT] we set aside the findings of the ld. CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to allow 100% of the deduction claimed u/s 80IC of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 6165/DEL/2017 - - - Dated:- 10-3-2021 - Shri N.K. Billaiya, Accountant Member, And Shri Kuldip Singh, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri Gautam Jain, Adv For the Revenue : Shri Gayabuddin Ansari, Sr.DR ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the ld. CIT(A) - 28, New Delhi dated 01.08.2017 pertaining to A.Y 2013-14. 2. The solitary grievance of the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) erred in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wice, firstly while beginning to manufacture or produce the articles or things and secondly, while undertaking substantial expansion whereas sub-section (2) clearly says that the provisions applied to any [one] undertaking or enterprise which begins to manufacture or produce the articles or undertakes substantial expansion. 9. Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee, at the very outset, stated that the quarrel is now well settled in favour of the assessee and against the revenue by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Aarham Softronics 412 ITR 623. 10. Per contra, the ld. DR strongly supported the findings of the lower authorities. 11. We have given thoughtful consideration to the orders of the authoriti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 7,57,548 - 2,27,264) was made by the assessee in the return of income for the A.Y. 2012-13 and wrongly allowed by Assessing Officer as well 12. A perusal of the assessment order vis a vis the order of the first appellate authority makes it evident that the basis for restriction of deduction @30% instead of 100% of profits and gains u/s 80IC of the Act is that the year under consideration is six A.Ys and the appellant has claimed deduction @ 100% for 5 A.Ys i.e. 2007-08 to 2011-12 which has been duly allowed by the Revenue. The fact which has been completely ignored by the lower authorities is that the appellant has undertaken substantial expansion as prescribed u/s 80IC(iia) of the Act. Ignoring this fact, the revenue authoritie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t five years, the admissible deduction would be 25% (or 30% where the assessee is a company) of the profits and gains. (c) However, in case substantial expansion is carried out as defined in clause (ix) of sub-section (8) of Section 80-IC by such an undertaking or enterprise, within the aforesaid period of 10 years, the said previous year in which the substantial expansion is undertaken would become 'initial assessment year', and from that assessment year the assessee shall been entitled to 100% deductions of the profits and gains. (d) Such deduction, however, would be for a total period of 10 years, as provided in sub-section (6). For example, if the expansion is carried out immediately, on the completion of first five years, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
