TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 763X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the assessee on the ground that the expenses must have been allocated on revenue ratio of eligible and non eligible units whereas the allocation of expenses exhibited hereinabove clearly shows that either they are on actual basis or on revenue ratio basis and some of the expenses are directly attributable to the units. In our considered opinion, allocation is based on actual scientific basis duly certified by the CA in Form No. 10CCB and therefore, the same cannot be faulted with. This claim is not for the first time but initial Assessment Year of claim is 2007-08 wherein the Assessing Officer has accepted the claim of deduction. In our considered view, unless the claim is disturbed in the initial Assessment Year, the same cannot be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri Anshul, Adv For the Revenue : Shri Rocktim Saikia, Sr. DR ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, The above captioned cross appeals by the assessee preferred against order of the Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] - 11, New Delhi dated 29.01.2014 and by the Revenue preferred against order of the Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] - 15, New Delhi dated 03.03.2015 pertaining to A.Ys 2008-09 and 2009-10 respectively. 2. Since common issues are involved in the captioned appeals they were heard together and are disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 3. The common grievance in assessee s appeal relates to the disallowance of deduction made by the Assessing Off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... units resulting into higher profit in eligible units than the profits in non eligible units. (iv) The Assessing Officer was of the opinion that the assessee has not apportioned other income between the eligible and non eligible units. The claim of deduction of ₹ 10,48,65,690/- was restricted to ₹ 5,61,69,752/- thereby disallowing ₹ 4,86,95,938/-. 7. The assessee agitated the matter before the ld. CIT(A) but without any success. 8. Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee vehemently stated that the findings of the Assessing Officer that the assessee is not maintaining separate books of account is not correct as the assessee has maintained ERP based account having separate code for each head of expenditure. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l consideration to the orders of the authorities below. It is true that the assessee is maintaining ERP based account which have separate code for each head of expenses and this has been accepted by this Tribunal in the case of DCIT Vs. N.I.I.T in ITA No. 1112/DEL/2012 wherein this Tribunal has held that ERP software accounting system was sufficient compliance for the purpose of claiming deduction u/s 10B of the Act. 13. Appeal by the Revenue against this order of the Tribunal was not admitted by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated 01.03.2016 in ITA no. 897/2015. Similar view was taken by this Tribunal in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd in ITA No. 196/DEL/2013 wherein this Tribunal has held that maintaining accoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... On actual basis Printing and stationary Allocated on the basis of revenue of respective units Legal and professional On actual basis. The expenses not identifiable are allocated in revenue ratio Bank charges On basis of revenue of respective unit Auditor remuneration On basis of revenue of respective unit Reimbursement of expenses On basis of revenue of respective unit Repair and maintenance Repair and maintenance of buildings have been allocated on the basi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct the Assessing Officer to allow the claim of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act as claimed by the assessee. 19. Ground No. 1 with all its sub-grounds is allowed. 20. Ground Nos. 2 and 3 were not pressed. The same are dismissed as not pressed. 21. The common grievance in Revenue s appeal relates to the non confirming of the addition of ₹ 5,44,15,806/- on account of licence fee which was held as capital in nature by the Assessing Officer. 22. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee has paid a sum of ₹ 7,25,54,408/- by way of licence fee in Assessment Year 2008- 09 to the Department of Telecommunication. The Assessing Officer was of the firm belief that the said payment was towards capital expen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
