9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 441X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e was computed at Rs.40,84,160/- and deduction on that amount was claimed, which the AO has allowed after satisfying that on business income deduction u/s 80IB is allowable in full. Thus this is a clear cut case of change of opinion as one AO has allowed deduction by considering the fact that disallowance of expenditure under Section 40(a)(ia) has been made by assessee himself and, therefore, business income was increased and on business income, the deduction is allowable. Therefore, the reopening of the assessment was bad in law. See M/s 1Up Clothing Co (2013 (5) TMI 88 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT) wherein held that deduction on the amount of expenditure disallowed in terms of Section 40(a)(ia) is allowable as the disallowance on expendit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isallowing the expenditure the deduction is allowable on total gross income. Thereafter assessment under Section 147/148 was reopened by observing that deduction under Section 80IB is not allowable on the amount of disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Accordingly, it was observed by the AO that to this extent income has escaped assessment. Thereafter assessment was reopened and the impugned addition was made. 5. The assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(A), who rejected the legal grounds in respect of reopening of the assessment, however, allowed the issue on merit following the decision of Ahmedabad Bench in the case of CIT Vs. M/s 1Up Clothing Co, passed in ITA No.3352/Ahd/2008, vide order dated 12-12-2008, which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... siness income deduction under Section 80IB is allowable in full. The learned CIT(A) by observing that the reopening was not on account of change of opinion, therefore, the reopening of assessment was confirmed. 8. In our view, this is a clear cut case of change of opinion as one AO has allowed deduction by considering the fact that disallowance of expenditure under Section 40(a)(ia) has been made by assessee himself and, therefore, business income was increased and on business income, the deduction is allowable. Therefore, in our view, the reopening of the assessment was bad in law. Accordingly, we quash the reassessment as the reopening was bad in law. 9. Even, on merit also, it is seen that the issue is squarely covered by the decisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
