9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (8) TMI 252X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere not justified in denying the claim of deduction u/s 80-IA of the Act to the assessee based on an earlier decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lucky Minmat (P) Ltd.[ 2000 (8) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT] . Thus respectfully following the same, we direct the AO to consider the claim of deduction u/s. 80-IA of the Act of the assessee in the aforesaid assessment years. The first appellate order is, therefore, set aside. The ground Nos. 1 to 3 are thus allowed in favour of assessee. The appeals are thus partly allowed. - I. C. Sudhir Judicial Member And B. P. Jain Accountant Member For the Appellant : Nikhlesh Kataria For the Respondent : C. Thankachchan ORDER-I.C. SUDHIR, J.M.: 1. In all these three ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t for above years withdrawing the deduction under s. 80-IA on the basis of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lucky Minmat (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 162 CTR (SC) 404 : (2000) 245 ITR 830 (SC). In the reassessment, AO did not agree with the contentions of assessee and learned CIT(A) has also upheld the withdrawal made by the AO based on aforesaid decision. The learned Authorised Representative submits that assessee's case was directly covered by the later decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Sesa Goa Ltd. (2004) 192 CTR (SC) 577 : (2004) 271 ITR 331 (SC) wherein the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mysore Minerals Ltd. (2001) 166 CTR (Kar) 142 : (2001) 250 ITR 725 (Ka ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Transport Co. (P) Ltd. (1970) 77 ITR 518 (SC) and the case in CIT vs. Podar Cement (P) Ltd. (1997) 141 CTR (SC) 67 : (1997) 226 ITR 625 (SC). 3. On the issue of charging of interest under s. 234B of the Act learned Authorised Representative submits that the lower authorities have made and upheld it without appreciating that in the assessment order no specific direction in this regard has been made by the AO but he has directed as Assessed. Issue necessary forms. Charge interest as per law. Reliance has been placed by him on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case CIT vs. Ranchi Club Ltd. (2000) 164 CTR (SC) 200 and of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case Zakir Hussain vs. CIT (2006) 202 CTR (Raj) 40. 4. The le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee in CIT vs. Mysore Minerals Ltd. (1994) 205 ITR 461 (Kar) : TC 28R. 259 and it was held that the assessee is an industrial undertaking entitled to investment allowance under s. 32A. In view of the decision given in the case of the assessee we are of the view that the Tribunal is right in law in coming to the conclusion that the original assessment which granted the relief under ss. 32A and 80-I to the assessee was not erroneous and the inference of the CIT under s. 263 was not proper. 6. We are thus respectfully following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case CIT vs. Sesa Goa Ltd. direct the AO to consider the claim of deduction under s. 80-IA of the Act of the assessee in the aforesaid assessment years in view of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
