9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 614X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the assessee by Rs. 26,88,182/- from Rs. 80,28,863/- by proportionate allocation the table and exempted unit. 2. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has erred in law and in fact in deleting the disallowance of deduction u/s. 80IB which was made by Assessing Officer on account of receipts which were not derived form the industrial undertaking under head interest from FDR unclaimed creditors written back and insurance claim cumulatively amounting to Rs. 97,597/-." 3. Apropos ground no. 1:- The assessee firm has five units. Out of five units, two units are existing in exempted zones and three are existing in taxable zones. Assessing Officer noted that from the perusal of the books and records, it was noticed that assessee has debited ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing funds. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) noted that Assessing Officer has not brought any material on record in support of the contention that interest of loans pertaining to tax free units has been booked / diverted to taxable units. Accordingly, Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) held that deduction of claim u/s. 80IB by Rs. 26,88,182/- was deleted. 5. Against the above order the Revenue is in appeal before us. 6. We have heard both the counsel and perused the records. Ld. Departmental Representative supported the order of the Assessing Officer . Ld. Counsel of the assessee on the other hand supported the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) and submitted brief synopsis. We have heard the rival contentions in light o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the submissions of the assessee that no disallowance in this regard has been made in the past and as such even in view of rule of consistency, the disallowance made is not tenable. In the background of the aforesaid discussions and precedents, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) and accordingly, we uphold the same. 7. Apropos ground no. 2:- On this issue Assessing Officer noted that from the Unit-II at Barotiwala, the assessee has claimed deduction u/s. 80IB on its 100% profits at Rs. 11,57,28,902/-. Assessing Officer noted that from the perusal of the profit and loss account of the unit, it was noticed that following receipts had been considered for computation of profits of the undertak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ITD 535 (Del.) Samtex Fasions Ltd. vs. ACIT 11. The sundry creditors were outstanding for business transaction. Hence, it cannot be said that income in this regard was not derived from the industrial undertaking. In this case the case law of C.I.T. vs. Abdul Rehman Industries 293 ITR 475 (Chennai) supports the case of the assessee. 11.1 As regards the claim of Rs. 25,820/-. It is noted that Barotiwala unit of the assessee has debited Rs. 1,11,199/- paid as insurance charges and against it claim of loss of Rs. 25,820/- was received during the year. It is the claim of the ld. Counsel of the assessee that since the insurance charges paid to insurance company are treated as business expenditure, then the claim received from the insurance comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
