9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 381X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r unit, before the A.O. These details were filed before the Ld. CIT(Appeals). Under these circumstances, we are of the opinion that all the details such as machineries, equipments and other assets purchased/acquired by the assessee, including bills, in respect of Haridwar unit established by the assessee have to be produced before the A.O. The A.O. is directed to decide the issue de novo. Remit the matter back to the file of the A.O. for fresh examination. - Decided in favour of revenue for statistical purposes. Disallowance of mould amortization charges - CIT(A) allowed the claim - Held that:- CIT(Appeals) without discussing anything on the matter simply allowed the ground raised by the assessee. Necessary document like agreement betwee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arges. During the course of assessment proceedings, the A.O. has observed that the assessee has claimed deduction under Section 80-IC of the Act, for the first time, to the tune of ` 5,44,39,211/-. The Form 10BBA filed along with the return of income revealed that the assessee claimed deduction under Section 80-IC of the Act for its unit at Haridwar and the initial assessment year for which the deduction was claimed is assessment year 2009-10. On examination of the details filed by the assessee with regard to the allowability of its claim under Section 80-IC of the Act and based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the A.O. discussed the claim of deduction under Section 80-IC of the Act as under:- (i) The assessment year 2009-10 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lit up of the assessee s business which is already in existence. (vi) For Haridwar unit, the assessee had recorded a whopping net profit @ 26.41% on the turnover whereas it has recorded only a meager percentage of net profit @ 2.12% on the turnover for the Chennai unit for the relevant period, though the turnover of the Chennai and Haridwar units as reported by the assessee are almost equal. It is a clear indication that the assessee had shifted its expenditure to the Chennai unit and recorded a higher profit for the Haridwar unit so as to claim deduction under Section 80-IC of the Act. (vii) For all these years including this relevant period, the assessee had business transactions mainly with Hindustan Unilever Ltd. for supply of pla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 88,45,112.64 Fixed Asset - Building 4,32,71,138.42 Fixed Asset - Cooling Tower 93,337.50 Fixed Asset - Electrical Weighing Scale 39,375.00 Fixed Asset - Freight Elevator 8,65,200.00 Fixed Asset - Land 69,07,572.39 Fixed Asset - Machinery 42,50,106.00 Fixed Asset - Power Transformer 11,64,375.00 Toshipa Machine Injection Moulding Machine 2,37,65,804.50 Grand Total 9,14,82,122.45 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Therefore, the assessee is not eligible under Section 80-IC(4) of the Act and for the reason that the net profit of Haridwar unit is at 26.41% on the total turnover whereas the net profit of Chennai unit is at 2.12% on the total turnover. We also find that the assessee has not filed any details with regard to machineries, equipments and assets in respect of newly established Haridwar unit, before the A.O. These details were filed before the Ld. CIT(Appeals). Under these circumstances, we are of the opinion that all the details such as machineries, equipments and other assets purchased/acquired by the assessee, including bills, in respect of Haridwar unit established by the assessee have to be produced before the A.O. The A.O. is directed t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cost has been included in the product cost and amortised after taking CENVAT credit by the assessee. The assessee further submitted that the moulds last for a limited time and therefore do not provide any enduring benefit to the assessee. The fact that the mould cost paid is being recovered from M/s HUL by way of cost being included in the sale price makes it clear that the said expenditure is not in the nature of capital expenditure. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) held that the amount is paid towards cost of the production and hence provisions of TDS are not applicable. Thus the Ld. CIT(Appeals) allowed this ground raised by the assessee. 10. On being aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. Ld. D.R. submitted that the moulds have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
