9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1887X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed the following grounds in ITA No.151(B)/2016: "1. The order of the CIT(A)-5, Bangalore is opposed to law and not on the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in allowing deduction u/s 80JJAA based on the jurisdictional ITAT decision in the case of Texas Instruments (Ind.) Pvt.Ltd., as the issue involved in the referred case related to whether the new employees, being software engineers, were eligible for the said deduction as they did not come within the ambit of the term 'wortkman'. New workman employed for period of 300 days in relevant previous year are eligible for deduction u/s 80JJAA and no reference to new employees employed in the preceding year is made in the sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in law in allowing the expenses claimed without taking into account the turnover declared before the sons of the Directors were sponsored for higher studies and after their return from higher studies. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the fact that the data of turnover clearly shows that even before they were sponsored for higher studies, the turnover had been increasing year-on-year and the contention that the higher turnover is because of the input of the two employees is not acceptable. 4. The appellant craves for leave to, add alter, amend or delete any other grounds on or before hearing of the appeal" 4. Learned DR of the revenue supported the assessment order whereas the ld. AR of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 007-08 and 2008-09 in ITA Nos1231 to 12339Bang)/2014 dated 24/07/2015. Respectfully following the order of the Tribunal, we remit the issue back to the file of the AO for de novo examination of the claim in accordance with provisions of law". From the above Para re-produced from the order of the Tribunal in assessee's own case for assessment year 2010-11, we find that the Tribunal has followed the earlier Tribunal order in assessee's own case for the assessment year 2007-08 to 2009-10 and thereafter, the Tribunal has restored the matter back to the file of the AO for fresh decision in accordance with law. Accordingly, in the present year also, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue and restore this matter back to the file o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
