9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 778X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssment proceedings, the entire initiation has been vitiated and become bad in law. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 6416/Mum/2010, ITA No. 6971/Mum/2010, ITA No. 1246/Mum/2012 - - - Dated:- 2-1-2015 - Shri R. C. Sharma And Shri Vivek Varma,JJ. For the Appellant : Dr. K. Shivaram Ms. Neelam C. Jadhav For the Respondent : Shri R N D Souza ORDER Per Vivek Varma, JM: The following appeals have been filed and submitted for our consideration: Asst. Year Appeal by CIT(A) Dt. Of CIT(A) Order 2002-03 Assessee 4, Mumbai 06.07.2011 2002-03 Department 4, Mumbai 06.07.2011 2003-04 Department 4, Mumbai 16.12.2011 2. Assessment year 2002-03 is subjected to Cross Appeals by the assessee and the department, and since GOA for assessment year 2003-04 have identical issues as in assessment year 2002- 03, all the three appeals are taken up for disposal through this common and consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity. ITA No. 6416/Mum/2010 : Assessee Appeal : 3. The following ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mahape Electronic Sadan No. II (3 floor) Electronic Sadan No. IV, MIDC TTC Industrial Area, Mahape, Navi Mumbai 400 710 The Non-EOU Units are located all over India, with several branches as under: Location wise details of Non-EOU Units 1. Kolkatta 2. Jamshedpur 3. Bhubneshwar 4. Delhi 5. Jaipur 6. Lucknow 7.Gurgaon 8.Chandigarh 9.Himachal 10. Punjab 11. Chattisgarh 12. Bangalore 13. Hyderabad 14. Pondicherry 15. Cochin 16. Ahemedahad 17. Bhopal 18. Goa 19. Indore 20. Nagpur 21. Pune, Prabhat Road 22. Ballard Estate, Masjid, Mumbai 23. Mahape ES II (other than S T P ) It is to be noted that the assessee is claiming IOB deduction only in respect of Mahape Unit as all other units are Non-EOU Units. The authorized representative further submitted that the nomenclature Corporate expenses is only for the sake of convenience to bring the expenses incurred by the company on various occasions under one head. As mentioned above, the company is having branch offices across India. The expenses of ₹ 20,76,32,766/-, inclusive of depreciation, were booked under various heads in various locations all over In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t conclusion and wrongly allocated part of the expenses to the EOU units on the basis of the percentage turnover. The similar issue also came up for adjudication before me in the appellant's own case for A.Y. 2005-06 where the expenses were re-allocated between Non- EOU and EOU units. After due verification of facts, the reallocation of expenses were deleted by my appellate order No.CIT(A)-4/Addl. CIT Range 2(1)/I.T.-400/08-09 dated 23.04.2010. Following my order for AY 2005-06, the disallowance made by the AO is therefore held as unjustified and hence deleted. The appellant is therefore eligible for full claim u/s.10B of I. T. Act amounting to ₹ 85,52,55,884/-. The AO is directed to allow deduction of ₹ 85,52,55,884/- . 9. The CIT(A), thus allowed full allowance of deduction, u/s 10B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the unit claimed by the assessee. 10. Against this order, the department is in appeal before the ITAT. 11. Before us the AR submitted that the order on merits is correct on facts and therefore order of the CIT(A) should be sustained on merits, whereas, the DR relied on the orders of the AO. 12. After hearing the arguments of the contesting p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount to one lakh rupees or more for that year; 18. The AR pointed out that the Act is very clear to say and use the expression, relevant assessment year for that year. 19. Thus according to the AR, the AO erred in initiating the current reassessment proceedings on 31.03.2009, which is beyond six years from the end of the relevant assessment year, which is assessment year 2002-03. 20. Besides this, the AR also submitted that AO resorted to reopening twice on the same issue, i.e. computation of exemption u/s 10B, which clearly falls within the purview of change of opinion and in any case any initiation that has to be legal must have the foundation of tangible material, if the reopening is after the four years period. 21. The AR, placed reliance on Dynacraft Air Conlist u/s Sneha Joshi 355 ITR 102 (Bom) OHM Stock Brokers (P) Ltd vs CIT 351 ITR 443 (Bom) Allanasons Ltd. vs DCIT 107 DTR 62 (Bom) Titanor Components Ltd vs ACIT 60 DTR 273 (Bom) 22. The AR, therefore, submitted that the current initiation of reassessment proceedings is bad in law. 23. We have heard the rival arguments and have considered the date chart and the various decisions of the Hon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
