9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (9) TMI 1459 - AT - Income TaxDeduction u/s 80IC - restriction of claim to 30% of the eligible profits, as against 100% claimed by the assessee on account of substantial expansion carried out by it - Held that - The issue had been settled and decided against the assessee in the case of CIT vs Classic Binding Industries 2018 (8) TMI 1209 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA wherein find that it has been categorically held by the Hon ble Apex Court that the assessee is eligible to claim deduction under the section for a total period of 10 years, with the deduction being @ 100% of the eligible profits only for the initial five years and thereafter @ 25% or 30%, as provided in section 80IC(3) & 80IC(6) of the Act. The Hon ble Apex court has in very clear terms held that in terms of the provisions of the section no claim of deduction @ 100% of profits beyond the stipulated period of five years is allowable. - Decided against assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Restriction of deduction claimed by the assessee under Section 80IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to 30% of the eligible profits instead of the 100% claimed. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Restriction of Deduction under Section 80IC: The primary issue in the appeal was the restriction of the deduction claimed by the assessee under Section 80IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to 30% of the eligible profits, as opposed to the 100% claimed by the assessee due to substantial expansion. Facts of the Case: The assessee, engaged in manufacturing pharmaceutical formulations in Baddi, Himachal Pradesh, commenced production in 2005 and initially claimed a 100% deduction of profits under Section 80IC for the first five assessment years (2008-09 to 2012-13). In the 6th year (Assessment Year 2013-14), the assessee again claimed a 100% deduction, citing substantial expansion of the existing plant and machinery. Assessing Officer’s Decision: The Assessing Officer restricted the deduction to 30% of the eligible profits, relying on the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT, Chandigarh in the case of M/s Hycron Electronics, Baddi Solan vs. ITO and distinguishing it from the judgment in the case of Tirupati LPG Industries Ltd. vs. DCIT. The officer concluded that the deduction beyond the initial five years should be limited to 30%. CIT (Appeals) Decision: The CIT (Appeals) upheld the order of the Assessing Officer, agreeing with the restriction of the deduction to 30%. Assessee’s Argument: The assessee argued that the term "substantial expansion" allows for more than one substantial expansion and thus entitles the assessee to a 100% deduction of profits. The assessee cited judgments from the Hon'ble ITAT Delhi in the case of Tirupati LPG Industries Ltd. vs. DCIT and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Baja Tempo and Gwalior Rayon Silks Mfg. Co. Ltd., which supported their claim. Tribunal’s Observation: During the hearing, the counsel for the assessee conceded that the issue had been settled against the assessee by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs Classic Binding Industries. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision, which categorically held that the deduction under Section 80IC is limited to 100% of eligible profits for the first five years and 25% or 30% for the subsequent five years, as specified in Section 80IC(3) and 80IC(6). Supreme Court’s Findings: The Supreme Court clarified that the legislative intent behind Section 80IC was to provide a 100% deduction for the initial five years and a reduced deduction (25% or 30%) for the next five years, with the total deduction period capped at ten years. The Court emphasized that allowing a 100% deduction for another five years based on substantial expansion would violate the provisions of Section 80IC(3) and (6). Conclusion: Based on the Supreme Court's judgment, the Tribunal found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it, confirming the restriction of the deduction to 30% of the eligible profits. Final Order: The appeal of the assessee was dismissed, and the decision to restrict the deduction to 30% was upheld. Result: The appeal of the assessee was dismissed.
|
