9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 580X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e claim. (ii) That without prejudice to above, the consequential benefit in respect of claim us 80IC may be directed to be allowed in accordance with CBDT Circular No.37/2016. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in holding that the amount of Rs. 15,93,934/- being payment towards purchase of computers is in the nature of capital expenditure. 3(i) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in upholding disallowance of claim of deduction amounting to Rs. 3,29,40,574/- u/s 80IC in respect of Unit-III in total disregard to documentary evidences placed on record. (ii) That the appellant having satisfied all the pre-condition for a valid claim of deduction u/s 80IC in respect of Unit-III duly support by relevant evidences, there is no valid basis to dispute the statutory claim of deduction u/s 80IC. 4. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, forgo any of the grounds of appeal on or before or at the time of hearing. 3. The first issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in confirming the disallowance of claim of deduction u/s 80IC of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndia Limited also. Further, there is a confirmation from the Himachal Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. vide its communication dated 18/03/2010 addressed to M/s Marc India Ltd. granting permission to Marc India Ltd to rent-out part of its premises to M/s Marc Laboratories Ltd. i.e. (assessee herein). This confirmation is enclosed in pages 89 to 90 of the PB. Hence, the objection raised by the lower authorities in this regard deserves to be dismissed. b) Yet another ground for disallowance of deduction u/s 80-IC of the Act adduced by the lower authorities is that the assessee has not supported the claim of acquisition of plant and machinery for the new Unit No. III. In this regard, we find that the Ld. AO had passed the assessment u/s 147 r. w. section 143(3) of the Act dated 26/12/2016 for the AY 2011-12 wherein in para 11.1 of his order, there is a specific mention that assessee company has made additions to fixed assets amounting to Rs. 329.59 lacs in new plant and machinery and that the assessee company has provided the bills/vouchers for the same vide submission dated 08/01/2016 which had been duly verified by the Ld. AO. This fact clearly goes to prove th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3.3. We find that the assessee has made total sales of Rs. 15,18,22,261/- in Unit-III. After deducting various direct and indirect expenses allocable to Unit -III, the assessee had made net profit of Rs. 3,27,40,574/- for which deduction u/s 80IC of the Act was claimed. 3.4. From the aforesaid observations, it could be seen that assessee would be duly eligible for deduction u/s 80-IC of the Act in respect of Unit-III at Baddi. Accordingly, Ground No. 3(i), (ii) & 3 raised by the assessee are allowed. 4. The next issue to be decided in this appeal as to whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in partly upholding the disallowance to the extent of Rs. 72,36,394/- on account of sales promotion expenses in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 4.1. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale trading of pharmaceutical products. We find that the Ld. AO had observed that assessee had incurred a sum of Rs. 82,86,394/- on account of sales promotion expenses. When confronted with the assessee, the assessee stated that the same represents payments made in respect of gift items, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deduction u/s 80IC of the Act, in view of the aforesaid circular, the same would be eligible for enhanced deduction /s 80-IC of the Act for the assessee. Accordingly, Ground No.1(i) and (ii) are allowed. 5. The next issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in treating the payments made to Dotcom Creation, Redbrook Intertrade amounting to Rs. 15,93,934/- in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 5.1. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The lower authorities observed that the assessee had made payments to the following parties:- 1. Dotcom Creation Rs. 80,500/- Purchase 2. Redbrook Intertrade Rs. 11,09,052/- Purchase 3. Redbrook Intertrade Rs. 3,04,492/- Purchase 4. Salary Paid to IT Staff Rs. 9,62,627/- Expenses Total Rs. 24,56,671/- 5.2. The Ld. CIT(A) on considering the Explanation given by the assessee, categorically gave a finding that there was no double deduction claimed by the assessee in this regard. The Ld. CIT(A), however, observed that assessee had not adduced any evidence either before the Ld. AO or before him that the purchases relate to a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
