9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 724X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctory in the months of February 2004 and March 2004 were sold to various pharma companies by M/s. Flex Art Goa after paying the excise duty and all these sales are recorded in the Excise records and excise returns have been filed by M/s. Flex Art Goa. It is also a fact that Ess Dee Aluminium was having factory license prior to commencement of this business. The partnership Firm has permanent registration as 831 and registration with Sales Tax Authorities. In summary, what is required to be fulfilled for eligible deduction u/s.80-IB is not in dispute – Decided in favor of Assessee. Incomes not eligible for deduction u/s 80IB of the Income Tax Act - Assessee claimed deduction under section 80IB without excluding the interest income - Assessee contended that he has also incurred interest expenses, and therefore, only net interest, if any, ought to be excluded for computing the business income derived from eligible industrial undertaking, and therefore, not eligible for deduction under section 80IB of the Act – Held that:- Interest on FDRs cannot be held as income derived from industrial undertaking in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pandian Chemicals L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order of the CIT(A), Valsad dated 30.3.2010 for A.Y.2006-2007. ITA No.1752/Ahd/2010 and ITA No.2088/Ahd/2010 are the cross appeals filed by the assessee and the Revenue against the order of the CIT(A) dated 30.3.2010 for A.Y.2007-2008. 3. Sole issue in the appeal of the Revenue for A.Y.2005-2006 and ground nos.1 and 2 in A.Y.2006-2007 and ground nos.1 and 2 in A.Y.2007-2008 are directed against the orders of the CIT(A) holding that the assessee is eligible for deduction under section 80IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and directing the Assessing Officer to allow deduction of Rs. 7,50,01,370/- for A.Y.2006-2007 and Rs. 22,85,30,567/- in A.Y.2007-2008. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing aluminum foil for flexible packaging materials. The manufacturing unit of the assessee is located in the Union Territory of Daman which is a backward area of Union Territory as specified in the VIIIth Schedule to the Income Tax Act ("the Act" for short). The unit is located in Daman which began its manufacturing activities prior to 31-3-2004 thereby being eligible for deduction under section 80IB of the Act. 5. The Assessing Officer ("AO" for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Nagar, Village Bhimpore, Daman w.e.f. 03.03.2004. It was submitted that the plant and machinery in this industrial undertaking were new and the firm has employed more than 10 workers in its manufacturing process. It was also submitted that the firm, M/s.Ess Dee Aluminum was dissolved w.e.f. 16.07.2004 and the entire running business of the firm was taken over by the assessee-company with all its assets and liabilities. Copy of dissolution deed was filed with the AO. It was further submitted that the company made expansion of industrial undertaking by adding more plant & machinery. On the above facts, it was submitted that since industrial undertaking started its manufacturing activity prior to 31.3.2004 and therefore, satisfied the conditions for claiming deduction under section 80IB. It was also submitted that eligibility of deduction under section 80IB was with reference to profit earned by industrial undertaking. It was submitted that the change in constitution or ownership of industrial undertaking was not at all relevant for the purpose of deduction under section 80IB. Since industrial undertaking was same, which was operated by the partnership firm, in which the assessee-com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the partnership firm. It was explained that since business was carried on by the partnership firm earlier and since there was no closing stock at that time of dissolution of the partnership firm, no opening stock was shown by the assessee-company. Finally, it was submitted that it was submitted to the AO that since all the observations made by the AO in the letter dated 24.9.207 was without taking the facts into consideration, specially the fact that the industrial undertaking was earlier in operation by the Firm M/s.Ess Dee Aluminum, the observation of the AO against the assessee were not correct. It was submitted that in the facts of the case, documents filed by the assessee clearly showed that industrial undertaking began to manufacture its article from 3.3.2004 i.e. much before 31.3.2004, and hence was eligible for deduction under section 80IB. It was further submitted that during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee had filed a copy of letter dated 8.7.2004 written to Shri Khemchand Dhingra in which it had been conveyed that taking into account the earlier payments made by the assessee-company, he was requested to agree to the request for not charging monthly lea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut looking to the facts of the case and surrounding circumstances, and arrived at the conclusion that the land mentioned in the MOU to be partly used for manufacturing activities from 12.2.2004, was not given to the assessee before 31.3.2004. It was submitted that this fact borne by the record that amount of Rs. 1,11,111/- was paid by cheque to Shri Khemchand Dhingra, as earnest money for purchase of plot. It is also a fact that the final deed was executed on 8.7.2004 and the full consideration was paid. It was further submitted that it was also a fact that business of the firm upto 16.7.2004 and thereafter by the assessee-company continued on the same plot of land and the same was still continuing. It was also a fact that the manufacturing activity was started by the firm in which the company was partner from 12.2.2004 on part of the land and after dissolution of the firm, the assessee-company took over the entire assets and liabilities and the business was expanded to a great extent and even till the date the manufacturing of aluminum foil etc. was being done on the same plot and in the same factory which originally belonged to Shri Khemchand Dhingra. It was submitted that the se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -133, Panchal Udyog Nagar, Village Bhimpore, Daman. It was further submitted that certain direct enquiries were made by the AO from Sales-Tax Department and DIC, Daman. Sales Tax Department and DIC, Daman replied to the AO and these replies clearly showed that the unit was working at Plot No.124-133, Panchal Udyog Nagar, Village Bhimpore, Daman prior to March, 2004. It was submitted that the CIT(A) had made inspection of the assessment records of the assessee and has noted that the AO made enquiries from Sales Tax Department and DIC and also got reply from such department. It was submitted while deciding the issue of allowability of deduction under section 80IB, the AO completely ignored the replies of Sales-Tax Department, and DIC, Daman and did not mention in the assessment order about enquiries made from these two important government departments. It was, therefore, submitted that the AO has carried out the investigation with other authorities/agencies, such as, Sales-Tax Department, DIC, Daman, Daman Industrial Association, Electricity Department, department of Industries, Department of Industries, Chief Inspector of Factories, Department of Value Added Tax, Ministry of Corpora ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wn on Kotak Mahindra Bonk Ltd. xii) Sale Deed for purchase of same unit for which part consideration was paid in February, 2001 was executed in July, 2004 between the appellant company and M/s. Western Consolidated Pvt. Ltd. xiii) The Partnership Firm was dissolved on 16.07.2004 and the business was taken user by the appellant company. 7. The learned CIT(A) considering the submissions of the assessee, allowed the claim for deduction under section 80IB of the Act to the assessee by observing as under: Decision: I have carefully gone though the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer and the submission made by the Id. A.R. I have also perused the case records containing investigation materials collected by the Assessing Officer, the submissions put forth by the appellant's representative, the various case laws relied upon by the Assessing Officer and the appellant company. In my opinion, the finding of the AO have two limbs, which can be categorized as under: i) The appellant had not started manufacturing before 31.03.2004 based on the replies from M/s. Western Consolidated Pvt. Ltd and its Directors and the appellant had reconstru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not given as the company was not in existence during the previous year. Previous year operation was done by the partnership firm and there ore separate books of account maintained by the Partnership firm. Since the assessee company has no previous year, the question of giving previous year figures does not arise. 6. Initial assessment year has been shown as 2005-06 in the Form No.10CCB. In Form 10CCB given on page no.25 the auditor has mentioned in clause 8 & 9 as under: 8. Date of commencement of operation/activity by the undertaking or enterprise 10.02.2004. 9. Initial assessment year from when deduction is being claimed - A.Y.2005-2006. This means that the industrial undertaking has commenced its activities from 10.02.2004 i.e. by partnership firm which is relevant to assessment year 2005-2006 and hence the initial assessment year is shown as assessment year 2005- 06. Showing of commencement of operation/activity by undertaking in 10CCB on page 25 by the auditor from 10.02.2004 shows that the operation/ manufacturing was started prior to 31.3.2004. 7. PF contribution has been shown as NIL for the months of April 04 to July, 2004. Thus there was no business in A.Y.2004-05. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iven to the appellant for installation of machinery and for commencing manufacturing activity immediately by drawing power supply from the vendors electric power connection. This MOU was signed by Khemchand Dhingra and the same is duly notarized. The A.O. has doubted the signature of Mr. Khemchand Dhingra. The appellant submits that the signature of Khemchand Dhingra duly tallies with the signature made on final registered sale deed. After taking part possession of the factory premises, the erstwhile partnership Firm installed plant & machinery and carried out manufacturing activity in the said premises. This is evident from the following facts i) The bills and vouchers for purchase of new Plant and Machinery were produced before the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceeding. ii) Changes of business place /factory was intimated to the Sales Tax Department as well as to the DIC, Daman from time to time and the same is recorded in their records. iii) The partnership Firm filed its Sales Tax return for the period from 1st January 2004 to 31st March 2004 with the Sales Tax Department and the Sales Tax assessment has also been completed. iv) The erstwhile partnership Firm has d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ls of P&L A/c., Balance Sheet etc. of the Firm Ess Dee Aluminium before the AO and the AO had not rejected the content therein, which again support the cause of the appellant. 11. The assessee-company has claimed that it became partners in the firm M/s. Ess Dee Aluminum w.e.f. 3rd" March, 2004 and the manufacturing activity began in the new industrial undertaking situated at Plot No.124-132 Panchal Udyog Nagar, Village Bhimpore daman with effect from 03.03.2004. In this connection, the assesses submitted copy of MOU made at Daman on 12.02.04 between Mr. Khemchand Dhingra and Ess Dee Aluminum P. Ltd. in which clause No.6, it is specifically mentioned that purchaser i.e. Ess Dee Aluminum P. Ltd. shall pay the vendor i.e. Shri Khemchand Dhingra and others lease rent of Rs.10,000/- on or before the 10th day of succeedingwritten to Shri Khemchand Dhingra in which it has been conveyed that: "Taking into account our early payment, you were kind enough to agree to day on our request for not charging the monthly lease rentals and electricity charges payable to you as per the MOU dated 12.02.04." Both the above documents i.e. MOU dated 12.02.04 and Letter dated 08.07.04 are claimed to have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng of rent at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month. Finally due to waiver of rent at the time of final payment the entries regarding charging of rent was not made either in the books of account of partnership Finn or by Western Consolidated Private Limited. When enquiries were made, the employee of M/s. Western Consolidated Pvt. Ltd. wrongly denied of giving part possession of the factory premises, signing of any MOU or charging of any rent or electricity charges. While the facts of the case clearly prove that manufacturing/ production was done by the undertaking and the same continued on the same premises afterwards. In this connection, we wish to bring to your kind notice that the Assessing Officer has also made certain enquiries and written letters to the Sales Tax Department and to DIC, Daman. On inspection of assessment records, it is seen that the Assessing Officer has written letters to the General Manager, DIC and Assistant Sales Tax Officer on 26.11.2007 and 29.11.2007. On 26.11.2007 the Sales Tax Officer and General Manager, DIC has replied to the Assessing Officer. With their reply, they have also attached copy of application made by the appellant, changes intimated by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... explanation on the issue. The Assessing Officer issued summons to the Managing Director of the appellant company on 07.12.2007 to attend and to explain the reply received from the employee of M/s. Western Consolidated Pvt. Ltd. fixing the hearing on 12.12.2007 i.e. within 5 days. As the M.D. was not available on 12.12.2007 he applied for a short adjournment. The Assessing Officer without giving any further time passed assessment order on 27.12.2007. Although A.O. had ample time i.e. 15 days at his disposal, he without giving further opportunity passed assessment order on 27.12.2007. No fresh opportunity was given by Assessing Officer. 13. From the above facts, it is apparent that assessee failed to establish that the production was in fact commenced on or before 31.03.2004. It may be out of place to mention here that the documents created by the assessee-company to establish that the production was commenced at Plot No. 124-133, Bhimore, Daman are concocted and not genuine in the eyes of Law. So far documents with regard to Sales Tax Department and DIC Daman are concerned, the Assessing Officer has himself written to both the departments and obtained replies. With regard to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Firm in which the appellant was a partner and the unit was SSI unit. After the Firm became the proprietary concern of the appellant company, fresh registration for Sales Tax and CST was applied, which was granted on 19.07.2004 in the name of appellant. Appellant submissions are acceptable. 16. PF registration application filed with the PF department on 10.02.04 shows that the employment of labours by the assessee company is with effect from April. 2004 that too in the month of April, 2004 only one labour has been employed and in May, 2004 it creased to 02 labours. In the earlier unit which was run by the Partnership firm, PF was not applicable and hence no registration was taken. The appellant company applied for PF registration on incorporation on 10.02.2004. This has got no relevance with the business carried by partnership firm. Appellant submissions are acceptable. 17. Application for Factory License was made on 16.09.05 with the office of Chief Inspector of Factories & Boilers, Daman. License to work the factory was granted on 16.11.2005. The Assessing Officer has recorded that application for Factory License was made on are 16.09.2005 and License to work the factory was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or plant & machinery installed at factory premises for expansion of the business. Appellant submissions are acceptable 20. It has employed the effective workers after July, 2004 as per the application filed with the PF department PF application was filed only when PF was applicable to the industrial unit. Appellant submissions are acceptable 21. Assessee has obtained all the required licenses and certificates from various government agencies like Central Excise, Sales Tax, DIC Pollution Control board and factory license, permission from Gram Panchayat etc. as required under the respective legislation/authority for setting up a new unit in the year under consideration only. Copies of the same have already been filed on record. As mentioned above all the licenses and certificates from various government agencies like Central Excise, Sales Tax, DIC, Pollution Control Board and factory license have been taken by the appellant as and when the law became applicable to the industrial undertaking. The unit run by Ess Dee Aluminium earlier were also having necessary licenses as applicable to that unit. On expansion SSI registration was converted to MSI. Similarly, Excise Duty was not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goodwill, trade mark, trade name etc. thereof to the Continuing Partner, the party of the Third Party hereto. (5) The aforesaid business of M/s.Ess Dee Aluminium has been taken over as a running business with all its assets and liabilities including stock in trade, book debts, trade mark, trade name, goodwill and every other benefit, obligations etc. attached to the partnership by the Continuing Partner, the party of the Third Party hereto. In view of this, it is submitted that the entire business was taken over by the appellant company. Appellant submissions are acceptable 27. There is no transfer of capital from old unit to new unit. As mentioned in (d) above all the assets and liabilities including capital has been taken over by the appellant company on dissolution of the firm, which is very clear from the term and conditions recorded in Dissolution Deed. Appellant submissions are acceptable 28. The manufacturing activities carried out by the assessee firm are in new business environment with changed government policies. Government policies are not in the hands of appellant and changes from time to time depending upon the industrial environment, but any change in the gove ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly on 16.07.2004, whereas the company came into existence much earlier. The assessee company has promoted new undertaking for manufacture of aluminum foil of the capacity of 3600 tons. As per the applications made before the Ministry of Commerce, only inference can be drawn is that partnership firm had no capacity of manufacturing the aluminum foils It is submitted that the partnership firm was doing manufacturing of flexible packing material for pharma companies on job basis and running unit at Plot No.124- 133, Panchal Udyog Nagar, Bhimpore, Daman. After taking over the business by the appellant, the company continued to manufacture flexible packing material for pharma companies. The company has also started in the same unit manufacturing of aluminium foil used for makingflexible packing material for pharma companies. The business carried on by the partnership Firm and the appellant company are in the sane line of business except that a new manufacturing activity has been started for manufacturing aluminum foil and hence for manufacturing aluminum foil whatever permission is required from government authorities has been applied as and when it was required under the law. Appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the old unit has been capitalized. Appellant submissions are acceptable. 36. The term loan was sanctioned by the Corporation Bank and Shamrao Vithal Cooperative Bank Ltd. to the company to part finance the Green field project cost of setting manufacturing facilities for Parma Grade Aluminium Foil before the firm was dissolved. For expansion plan, company was in need of financial assistance by way of loan. It always take time for sanctioning of loan by the banks. Hence, company on the basis of projection and project cost has applied for loan to Corps ration flank before the Firm was dissolved, however, actual disbursement of loan was done only after the dissolution of the Finn. Since it was the projection, application was made to Corporation Bank and Shamrao Vithal Co- operative Bank ltd. for setting up manufacturing facilities for Parma Grade Aluminium Foil. The loan was sanctioned earlier and utilization of the loan was dune after the dissolution of the Firm and after the business of the old Firm has been taken over by the company. Sanction of luau earlier than dissolution of Firm does not mean that it is not expansion of existing unit and that new unit is established. Appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt directives were replied by Mr. Debashish Chakravorty, the authorized signatory. Apparently, the content of the letter dated 4.12.2007 from Mr. Debashish Chakravarty was evasive and not to the true point of clarification sought by the A.O. The A.O. categorically asked that, whether any MOU or letter dated 08.07.2004 was signed and received by you for which the reply was general in nature. Similarly the second important query, the A.O. sought to know from Mr. K. C. Dhingra and Mr. Vineet Dhingra was to confirm whether both the MOU and the said letter signed by Shri. K. C. Dhingra himself or someone else has forged the signature of Mr. K. C. Dhingra. To this important query reply was not furnished. The Dhingra's are conspicuous about not giving specific replies to these points. Even the directives issued to them was replied by the Authorised Signatories, denying signing of any Lease Agreement. However, from the perusal of the sale deed dated 8th July 2004, between Western Consolidated Private Limited and M/s. Ess Dec Aluminium Limited, the cheque no. 000054 of Rs. 1,11,111/- referred in MOU is reflected in the said Sale Deed. Therefore, in the absence of confirmation from Mr. K. C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oreover, there are plethora of evidences in favour of appellant to show that manufacturing started before 31.03.2004. 18.3 Reliance is placed on the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Kishinchand Chellaram v. Commissioner of Income tax, Bombay City-II, 125 ITR 713. In this case the Hon. Supreme Court reversed the decision of High Court and held as under: "Held reversing the decision of the High Court, on the facts, that the two letters dated February 18, 1955 and March 9, 1957, did not constitute any material evidence which the Tribunal could take into account for the purpose of arriving at the finding that the suet of Rs.1,07,350 was remitted by the assessee from Madras, and if these two letters were eliminated, there was no material evidence at all which could support its finding. Again in the same case, it has been held that the Department ought to have called upon the manager to produce the documents and papers on the basis of which he made the statements and confronted the assessee with those documents and papers. " 18.4 Again it was held "but before the income tax authorities could rely upon it, they were bound to produce it before the asseessee so that the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... company as there was change in constitution and the unit was changed from SSI unit to MSI unit. 18.6 Considering the above factual position. I hold that merely because the authorized signatory has mentioned in the letter that part possession was not given in February, 2004 it cannot be a ground for denying deduction U/s. 80-1B of Act. The Assessing Officer has not been able to establish that there was no production and no sales/job work claimed to have been made before March 2004 by the appellant. The job work carried out in the months of February 2004 and March, 004 is duly shown in Sales Tax returns filed by the Firm. The Sales Tax authorities have completed the assessment also. In the appellant's case, It was further seen that the goods produced at the factory in the months of February 2004 and March 2004 were sold to various pharma companies by M/s. Flex Art Goa after paying the excise duty and all these sales are recorded in the Excise records and excise returns have been filed by M/s. Flex Art Goa. It is also a fact that Ess Dee Aluminium was having factory license prior to commencement of this business. The partnership Firm has permanent registration as 831 and registration ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned CIT(A). 9. We have heard rival submissions and perused the orders of the lower authorities and material available on record. In the instant case, the deduction claimed under section 80IB was denied by the AO on the ground that the assessee commenced production after 31.3.2004. The claim of the assessee is that it commenced production on 3.3.2004 was mainly not accepted by the AO on the ground that the premises which was claimed to have been taken by the assessee on rent for its manufacturing activities was found by the AO as not correct on the basis of the statement of Shri Debashish Chakravorty, who was an employee of Shri Khemchand Dhingra. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) found that the statement of Shri Debashish Chakravorty is not admissible evidence against the assessee, as the assessee requested for examining of Shri Khemchand Dhingra which was not allowed by the AO. For this, the learned CIT(A) placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishanchand Chellaram Vs. CIT, 125 ITR 713. Further, the learned CIT(A) found that Shri Khemchand Dhingra who was the owner of the premises and who gave the premises to the assessee, as per the claim of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the net amount of interest income, if any. For this, he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ACG Associated Capsules Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Income-tax, (2012) 343 ITR 089 (SC). 14. We have heard rival submissions and perused the orders of the lower authorities and material available on record. In the instant case, the undisputed facts that the assessee derived interest income on fixed deposit ("FDRs." for short). Such interest income received from Daman Unit and Goa unit are as under: A.Y.2006-2007 A.Y.2007-2008 Daman Unit Rs. 5,93,380/- Rs. 1,06,23,708 Goa Unit Rs. 1,52,319/- Rs. 3,67,539/- The assessee claimed deduction under section 80IB without excluding the above interest income. Before the AO, the assessee contended that he has also incurred interest expenses, and therefore, only net interest, if any, ought to be excluded for computing the business income derived from eligible industrial undertaking, and therefore, not eligible for deduction under section 80IB of the Act. In respect of netting of interest expenditure, the AO observed that no material was brought by the assessee to show that borrowed funds were utilized ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, 90% of the interest income which has been included in the business income, is required to be excluded. In this context, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that only 90% of net amount i.e. after set off of interest expenditure, from such interest income needs to be excluded. Thus, the said decision was not in the context of the issue, which is involved in the present appeal, relevant for determining the income, which is derived from eligible undertaking. Thus, the said decision is distinguishable and not applicable in the instant case. We, therefore, dismiss this part of the ground of the appeal of the assessee. 17. As regards interest on staff loan of Rs. 4,913/- from Goa unit in asstt.year 2006-2007 and interest on staff of Rs. 4,913/- from Daman unit and Rs. 16,121/- from Goa unit in asstt.year 2007-208, the learned AR of the assessee conceded that the assessee was not eligible for deduction under section 80IB on the same, therefore, this part of the ground of the appeal is also dismissed. 18. With regard to the DEPB incentive of Rs. 9,42,601/- from Daman unit and Rs. 1,98,739 from Goa unit for A.Y.2006-2007 and DEPB incentive of Rs. 4,71,595/- from Daman unit for asstt.year ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce written back of Rs. 6,72,286/- for A.Y.2006-2007 and Rs. 63,530/- for A.Y.2007-2008 are eligible for deduction under section 80IB of the Act. 24. Brief facts of the case are that the AO observed that during the year the amount of sundry balances were written back, since they were no longer payable to the creditors. From this, it can be inferred that the amount in question was taken care while availing the benefit u/s.80IB in the year in which the expenditure was incurred and amounts were due to the creditors. It was held by the AO that the income shown by the assessee under the head balance written back was nothing but the cessation and remission of trading liability under section 41(1) of the Act, and was not the income derived from industrial undertaking, and therefore, not eligible for deduction under section 80IB of the Act. 25. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) held that these amounts were allowed as expenditure and profit was reduced and the deduction under section 80IB was allowed less. Hence, in the year in which it has been written back, it was eligible for deduction under section 80IB. 26. The learned DR supported the order of the AO, whereas, the learned AR of the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
