9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 1249X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Although Revenue has raised multiple grounds of appeal but essentially the grievance is with respect to two issues. Firstly, the Revenue is aggrieved by the decision of the CIT(A) in holding that income by way of sale of scrap was eligible for the deduction u/s. 80IB of the Act for the Pimpri Unit-II and Goa unit of the assessee company. 3. In the course of the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that assessee had claimed deduction u/s. 80IB of the Act in respect of the profits earned from Pimpri Unit-II amounting to Rs. 3,58,27,563/-. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of the assessee for deduction u/s. 80IB of the Act in respect of the Pimpri Unit-II holding that the said Unit was not a new independent undertakin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of scrap for Pimpri Unit-II and also for the Goa Unit, the Revenue is in appeal before us. 6. At the time of hearing, it was the common point between the parties that the issue relating to eligibility of sale of scrap for Sec. 80IB benefits is no longer res-integra but has been decided by the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for assessment year 2002-03 vide order dated 15.07.2011 (supra) in favour of the assessee. It was also a common point between the parties that the said precedent continues to hold the field as it has not been altered by any higher authority. In view of the aforesaid precedent we uphold the stand of the CIT(A) and as a result the Grounds of appeal nos. 1 and 2 raised by the Revenue stand dismissed. 7. The only other ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he computation of income. Against the aforesaid decision, Revenue is in appeal before us. 8. Firstly as per the Ld. DR the CIT(A) erred in admitting such additional ground. Further it is contended that assessee had itself credited such sum as income in its Profit & loss account and therefore the claim before the CIT(A) was not justified. 9. On the other hand the Ld. Representative for the assessee has defend the order of the CIT(A) by pointing out that the issue stood covered by the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sulzer India Limited (supra). 10. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. At the outset we may state that so far as the competence of the CIT(A) to admit the impugned issue as an additio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
