9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (9) TMI 684X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rred in relying on the decision of the Mumbai ITAT J Bench in conclusion of M/s. Iflunik Pharmaceuticals Ltd. in coming to the conclusion that as long as the assessee has not claimed more than 100 per cent deduction of the profits under both sections 80-IB and 80HHC, the same need to be computed independently, without appreciating the fact that the Mumbai Tribunal B Bench in the case of M/s. Texport Garments (ITA No. 1813/Mum./2003) held that double deduction is barred under Chapter VI-A by section 80-IA(9) and, therefore, the deduction claimed under section 80-IA/80-IB needs to be reduced from profits of the business for the purpose of allowing deduction under section 80HHC. 3. The appellant prays that the order of learned CIT(A) on the above grounds be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored." 3. The assessee is a company. It is engaged in diverse business including several manufacturing activities. In all assessment years 2001-02 to 2004-05, originally assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act. The assessee has claimed deduction under section 80HHC as well as section 80-IA/80-IB of the Act in all the above assessment years. These claims w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e profit of the eligible business and that the same does not affect computation of deduction under any other provisions of the Act. The assessee also submitted that the undertaking eligible for deduction under section 80-IA and the undertaking claiming deduction under section 80HHC are different and, therefore, it was not a case where the assessee was availing of benefit in respect of profit of one undertaking twice i.e., once under section 80-IA and again under section 80HHC of the Act. The assessee also relied on the decision of the ITAT J Bench, Mumbai in the case of Asstt. CIT v. Iflunik Pharmaceuticals Ltd. [IT Appeal Nos. 4389 and 4018 (Mum.) of 2002] learned CIT(A) held as follows : "It is observed that in the latest order dated 24-4-2006 of the ITAT J Bench, Mumbai in the case of Asstt. CIT v. Iflunik Pharmaceuticals Ltd. assessment year 1999-2000, on similar points the Jurisdictional ITAT observed and held : "We are of the view that the provisions of section 80-IA(9) only regulate the deductions allowable under Chapter VI-A and there is no restriction contained therein to regulate other deductions. The provisions of Chapter VI-A are meant to encourage v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Act. Another manufacturing unit viz., Plant 1 of Sachin Unit and Panvel Unit were entitled to claim deduction under section 80HHC of the Act. The products in respect of which section 80-IB deduction was claimed and section 80HHC deduction was claimed were different. In other words, the export of goods for which deduction under section 80HHC was claimed was of goods for which deduction under section 80-IB was not claimed by the assessee. In the original assessment deduction under section 80HHC was allowed without reducing the deduction allowed under section 80-IB of the Act. Assessment was later on reopened on the ground that under section 80-IA(9) of the Act deduction under section 80HHC ought to have been allowed after reducing the profits and gains on which deduction under section 80-IA was allowed. The question of validity of initiation of reassessment proceedings came up for consideration before the Hon ble Bombay High Court. While dealing with the provisions of section 80-IA(9) the Hon ble Bombay High Court observed as follows : "The next contention of the revenue is that in the regular assessment, the Assessing Officer has not discussed the provisions of section 80-IB( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fficer and if found correct the Assessing Officer shall not apply the provisions of section 80-IA(9)/80-IB(13). For this limited purpose of verification, the issue is rendered to the Assessing Officer. For statistical purposes, the appeals of the revenue are treated as allowed. 7. In view of the decision on the merits of the case, the grounds raised in cross objections regarding validity of initiation of reassessment proceedings do not require any consideration and these grounds are dismissed. 8. In CO. No. 358/Mum./06, in ITA No. 4203/Mum./06 ground No. 2 raised by the assessee reads as follows : "2.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in levying interest under section 234D. 2.2 The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate and ought to have held that the provisions of section 234D are applicable from assessment year 2004-05 and onwards. 2.3 The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate and ought to have held that in re-assessment proceedings interest under section 234D cannot be levied. 2.4 The respondent prays that the Assessing Officer be directed to delete the levy of interest under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
