TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 1269X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... THAT:- As in identical issue was considered by the Tribunal in assessee s own case [ 2014 (7) TMI 1372 - ITAT MUMBAI] - We find that the Tribunal has decided this issue at para No. 5 of its order wherein it has followed the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Excel Industries Limited. [ 2013 (10) TMI 324 - SUPREME COURT] Respectfully following the decision of the co-ordinate Bench, ground No. 3 raised by the assessee is allowed. Bogus purchases - HELD THAT:- We find that the Tribunal has considered this issue in assessee s own case[ 2014 (7) TMI 1372 - ITAT MUMBAI] for A.Y. 2009-10 wherein it has followed the decision for A.Y. 2008-09 and accordingly the Tribunal has remanded this matter to the file of the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nding effect should be given to the opening stock of A.Y. 2010-11 which the ld. CIT(A) directed to the A.O. We do not find any error or infirmity in this direction of the ld. CIT(A) as the value of the closing stock of one year has to be taken as the value of opening stock of the immediately succeeding year. This ground is accordingly dismissed. - I.T.A. No.5336/Mum/2012, I.T.A. No.5529/Mum/2012 - - - Dated:- 10-9-2014 - S/SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM AND N.K. BILLAIYA, AM Assessee by : Shri Dilip P. Bapat Department by : A.C. Tejpal O R D E R PER N.K. BILLAIYA, A.M. : These cross appeals by the assessee and the Revenue are directed against the order of the ld. CIT(A) 36, Mumbai dated 20-06-2012 pertaining to A.Y. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rch, not being expenditure in the nature of cost of land or building, on in-house research and development facility as approved by the prescribed authority. 6. The learned CIT(A) erred in denying deduction of Rs.104,97,93,011/- for the disallowance made in A.Y.2009-10 for the exchange fluctuations pertaining to outstanding forward contracts as on 31st March 2009 entered into for hedging foreign currency fluctuation risks arising from the transactions of export of goods and services. It is submitted that this amount has been credited to the profit loss account of A.Y.2010-11. Since the same has been disallowed already in A.Y.2009-10, taxing in again in A.Y.2010-11 would amount to double taxation of the same amount. Therefore, it is pray ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee is allowed. 9. Ground No. 4 relates to the disallowance of alleged bogus purchases in the amount of Rs. 21,39,414/-. 10. An identical issue was considered by the Tribunal in assessee s own case in ITA No. 5813/M/2011 for A.Y. 2009-10. We find that the Tribunal has considered this issue at para 28 of its order wherein it has followed the decision for A.Y. 2008-09 and accordingly the Tribunal has remanded this matter to the file of the A.O. for fresh adjudication after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. As no distinguishing fact has been brought before us, respectfully following the findings of the co-ordinate Bench, we restore this issue to the file of the A.O. for fresh adjudication after hearin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cer for computing 80IB deduction admissible to the eligible units and in holding that the assessing Officer was not justified in invoking the provisions of section 80IB(13) r.w. proviso to section 80IA(8) of the Act, when the assessee was under the obligation of law to adopt the market value for the goods transferred to and from the 80IB undertaking. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessee is eligible for claiming deduction u/s 80IB on the profits derived from the work/manufacturing got done through Lease and License manufacturers (LLMs). 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in holding that miscella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 1 of the Revenue is dismissed. 18. Ground No. 2 relates to the grievance that the ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessee is eligible for claiming deduction u/s 80IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the profit derived from the work/manufacturing got done through lease and licence manufacturers. 19. An identical issue was considered by the Tribunal in ITA No. 6299/M/2010 for A.Y. 2008-09 vide ground No. 2 of that appeal and has considered this issue at para 17 of its order and decided the ground against the Revenue. The facts and issue being identical, respectfully following the findings of the Tribunal (supra), ground No. 2 is dismissed. 20. Ground No. 3 relates to allowing the claim of deduction u/s 80IB of the Act on mis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
