9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 982 - AT - Income TaxDeduction u/s 80IC - definition of the initial assessment year contained in clause (v) of sub-section(8) of section 80IC can lead to a situation where there can be more than one assessment year within the said period of ten years - HELD THAT - It is now settled law that even a new undertaking, which has claimed deduction of its eligible profits @ 100% thereof for the first five years, is entitled to claim deduction @ 100% of its profits thereafter on account of substantial expansion undertaken by it. Since in the present case, the fact that the assessee had undertaken substantial expansion in A.Y. 2010-11 is not disputed, the assessee, we hold, is entitled to claim deduction @ 100% of its eligible profits even if it has already claimed deduction of its profits at the said rate for five years, in view of the law laid down by the apex court in this regard in its decision in the case of M/s Aarham Softronics 2019 (2) TMI 1285 - SUPREME COURT . Uphold the order of the Ld.CIT(A) on merits. All the appeals of the Revenue,challenging the order of the Ld.CIT(A) on merits are therefore dismissed. Now taking up the assessee s appeals against the action of the CIT(A) in not disposing off the legal ground raised by it, challenging the validity of assessment framed under section 147 of the Act, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that it do not wish to press the grounds raised.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the assessment framed under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Restriction of claim of deduction under section 80IC of the Income Tax Act to 25% of eligible profits instead of 100%. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the assessment framed under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961: The assessee challenged the initiation of proceedings under section 147, arguing that they were invalid, void ab initio, and based on a mere change of opinion. The assessee contended that all facts and material were disclosed during the original assessment proceedings. However, the CIT(A) did not adjudicate this legal ground. The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not wish to press these grounds during the appeal, leading to their dismissal as not pressed. The Tribunal clarified that this decision would not act as a precedent for any identical ground or issue raised by the assessee in other years. 2. Restriction of claim of deduction under section 80IC of the Income Tax Act to 25% of eligible profits instead of 100%: The core issue in the appeals was the restriction of the claim of deduction under section 80IC to 25% of eligible profits by the Assessing Officer (AO), as opposed to the 100% claimed by the assessee due to substantial expansion. The assessee had initially claimed 100% deduction of eligible profits for the first five years and subsequently claimed the same rate based on substantial expansion. The AO restricted the deduction to 25% after the initial five years, relying on the decision in Hycron Electronics vs ITO. The CIT(A) allowed the assessee’s appeal, following the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in M/s Stove Craft India vs Commissioner of Income Tax. The Revenue challenged this decision, arguing that the CIT(A) erred in allowing the 100% deduction without discussing the merits and relying on decisions not accepted by the department, with SLPs filed against them. The Tribunal noted that the Hon’ble Apex Court had settled this issue in favor of the assessee in Pr.CIT, Shimla Vs. M/s Aarham Softronics. The Apex Court concluded that substantial expansion could lead to more than one "initial assessment year" within a ten-year period, allowing 100% deduction even after substantial expansion. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s order on merits, affirming that the assessee was entitled to claim 100% deduction of eligible profits due to substantial expansion, even after claiming the same for the initial five years. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed all appeals of the Revenue, upholding the CIT(A)’s order on merits. The appeals of the assessee regarding the validity of assessment under section 147 were dismissed as not pressed. In effect, all cross appeals, both of the assessee and the Revenue, were dismissed.
|
