9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (11) TMI 1711 - AT - Income TaxDeduction u/s 80-IB - Difference between the amount claimed by the assessee u/s 80-IB of the Act and the deduction allowed by the AO - different method of apportionment of expenditure followed by the AO - HELD THAT - There is merit in the submissions of the assessee as the proposition canvassed by the assessee are supported by Judgments cited above and the facts narrated by him above. AR has also pointed out that the assessee has been following the method for allocation of common selling and office expenses since long. Therefore the assessee under consideration has been following consistent basis for allocation of common selling expenses and head office expenses. The method adopted by the assessee has been confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) and also confirmed by the Jurisdictional ITAT Kolkata. The AO while making the assessment did not accept the basis for allocation of common selling and head office expenses adopted consistently by the assessee and he has not accepted the orders of the Kolkata Bench of Tribunal. Since the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the orders passed by the Kolkata Bench of the Tribunal in the preceding previous years therefore we do not hesitate to confirm the order passed by the ld. CIT(A). Appeal of the revenue is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Method of apportionment of common selling and administrative expenses for deduction under section 80-IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Detailed Analysis: 1. Method of Apportionment of Common Selling and Administrative Expenses for Deduction under Section 80-IB: The case revolves around the method of apportionment of common selling and administrative expenses for claiming deduction under section 80-IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee, engaged in the manufacture and sale of paints, enamels, varnishes, and resin, claimed a deduction of ?33,81,19,725 under section 80-IB for five units located in Pondicherry, Goa, and Jammu. The Assessing Officer (AO) computed the deduction at ?30,21,88,063, leading to a difference due to the different methods of apportionment of expenses. The AO adopted a method where the proportion of expenses was based on the turnover of the 80-IB unit relative to the increase in the total turnover of the assessee-company, instead of the total turnover. This method was applied to both common selling expenses and administrative expenses for all units claiming the deduction under section 80-IB. Consequently, the AO made an addition of ?3,59,31,662 due to this apportionment method. Aggrieved, the assessee appealed to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], who deleted the addition made by the AO. The CIT(A) relied on previous judgments of the ITAT Kolkata, which had accepted the assessee's basis for allocation of common expenses in earlier years (A.Ys. 2000-01, 2001-02, and 2002-03). The CIT(A) noted that the method adopted by the assessee was consistent, reasonable, and scientific, and had been upheld by the ITAT in previous cases. The Revenue then appealed to the ITAT. The Departmental Representative reiterated the AO's stand, while the assessee's Authorized Representative argued that the allocation method had been consistently accepted by the ITAT in earlier years. The ITAT referred to its consolidated order dated 17.05.2006 for A.Ys. 2000-01 and 2001-02, which held that the allocation method used by the assessee was reasonable and scientific. The ITAT also considered the consolidated order dated 13.08.2007, which followed the decision of the ITAT dated 17.10.2006, stating that the Department should have accepted the allocation made by the assessee. The ITAT emphasized that the assessee had been following a consistent basis for allocation of common expenses since A.Y. 1998-99, which had been accepted by the Department in earlier years. The ITAT concluded that the method adopted by the assessee for allocation of common selling and administrative expenses was reasonable and scientific, and had been consistently followed and accepted in previous years. Therefore, the ITAT upheld the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. Conclusion: The ITAT confirmed that the method of apportionment of common selling and administrative expenses adopted by the assessee for claiming deduction under section 80-IB was reasonable, scientific, and consistent with previous years. The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed, and the order of the CIT(A) was upheld.
|
