9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (10) TMI 198 - HC - Income TaxDeduction under section 80I / 080IB - allocation of expenses - expansion of existing unit or setting of new identifiable unit - Alleged that Unit at Urse which was described as Unit-II was in fact an expansion of the existing unit, Unit-I - depreciation of Unit-II at Urse Held that - (i) There was a substantial investment of funds in the Unit which was set up in the previous year relevant to the Assessment Year 1994-95; (ii) New plant and machinery was installed; (iii) The Unit was housed in a new building constructed at site and was an independent viable Unit capable of producing goods manufactured by itself; and (iv) There was a substantial increase in the capacity of production. - Order of ITAT upheld in favor of assessee
Issues Involved:
1. Allocation of expenses to Urse-1 Unit for deduction under Section 80IB. 2. Determination of Urse Unit-II as a separate identifiable integrated unit. 3. Adjustment of depreciation on Urse-II Unit against profits of Urse-1 Unit for deduction under Section 80IB. Detailed Analysis: 1. Allocation of Expenses to Urse-1 Unit: The Tribunal's decision on the allocation of expenses made by the Assessing Officer to Urse Unit-I was based on a precedent set in the Assessee's case for Assessment Year 1993-94. The Tribunal remitted the issue back to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for re-examination in line with the directions from the previous year's decision. The Revenue could not demonstrate any factual distinction for the current assessment year or that the previous decision had been challenged. Consequently, no substantial question of law was deemed to arise on this issue. 2. Determination of Urse Unit-II as a Separate Identifiable Integrated Unit: The Assessee claimed that Urse Unit-II, set up during the previous year relevant to Assessment Year 1994-95, was a separate industrial undertaking. The Assessing Officer, however, considered it an expansion of the existing Urse Unit-I, necessitating the inclusion of Urse-II's depreciation in the profit computation of Urse-I for Section 80I deduction. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) accepted the Assessee's claim, noting that the new unit had independent machinery and substantial investments, making it an independent viable unit. The Tribunal confirmed this decision, highlighting substantial investments, independent machinery, and increased production capacity. The Tribunal found that Urse Unit-II was a separate identifiable unit by itself. The Revenue argued that Unit-II was on the same plot, produced the same goods, and did not maintain separate balance sheets or licenses, indicating it was merely an expansion. The Assessee countered that the new unit met all criteria for being an independent unit, including substantial investment, independent production capability, and not being formed by reconstructing the existing business. The Court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Textile Machinery Corpn. Ltd. v. CIT, which laid down tests for determining a new industrial undertaking, including substantial fresh capital investment, independent production capability, and a separate identity. Applying these principles, the Court found that Urse Unit-II met the criteria for being a new industrial undertaking. 3. Adjustment of Depreciation on Urse-II Unit: The Assessing Officer's decision to adjust Urse-II's depreciation against Urse-I's profits was based on the view that Unit-II was an expansion of Unit-I. However, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal found that Urse Unit-II was an independent unit with substantial investments, independent machinery, and increased production capacity. The Tribunal's findings, supported by evidence of substantial investments and independent production capability, were upheld by the Court. The Court concluded that the Tribunal's decision did not warrant reappreciation or reconsideration, affirming that Urse Unit-II was a separate identifiable unit. Conclusion: The Court disposed of the appeal by answering both questions of law in the affirmative, supporting the Tribunal's findings that Urse Unit-II was a separate identifiable unit and that the allocation of expenses and depreciation adjustments were appropriately handled. There was no order as to costs.
|
