9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 832X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cancelled. - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A. No. 999/DEL/2013 - - - Dated:- 9-2-2015 - Shri H.S. Sidhu And Shri J.S. Reddy JJ. For the Appellant : Sh. R.K. Mehra, CA Sh. Munish K. Adv. For the Respondent : S h. BRR Kumar, Sr. DR ORDER Per H.S. Sidhu : JM This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the Order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-X, New Delhi dated 05.12.2012 pertaining to assessment year 2002-03. The assessee has as many as 10 grounds of appeal, but in all the grounds the issue is common i.e. allocation of interest and expenditure on the basis of the utilization of loan amount among various units for the purpose of direction under section 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 196 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atiala on 12.10.2007 wherein showing the limits granted for various units for working capital and set aside the issue to the file of AO with the direction to decide the same afresh in the light of the additional evidence after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard. In compliance of the ITAT s order dated 4.7.2008 passed in ITA NO. 4835/Del/2005 for the asstt. year in dispute, the AO issued a notice u/s. 142(1) dated 16.09.2009 to the assessee. In response to the same, Authorised Representative appeared from time to time and filed the details as required by the AO. After going through the details filed by the assessee, the AO did not accept the contention of the assessee and held at page 2 to 3 of his order, which is reproduced a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order, as reproduced above. 4. Now the assessee has filed the present Appeal against the impugned order dated 5.12.2012 passed by the Ld. CIT(A). At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel of the assessee stated that the issue in dispute is squarely covered by the decision of the ITAT, Delhi G Bench passed in assessee s own case vide ITA No. 238/D/2008 (A.Y. 2004-05) and ITA No. 425/D/2008 (A.T. 2004-05) in the case of ACIT vs. M/s Sadhu Forging Ltd. vide order dated 30.4.2010. Assessee has filed a copy of the aforesaid order with the Paper Book which containing pages 1 to 63 in which he has attached various documentary evidences including the order of ITAT as aforesaid and the order dated 31.1.2007 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) on the same issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at Ld. CIT(A) has not followed the order dated 30.4.2010 of this Tribunal passed in assessee s own case for the asstt. year 2004-05 in which the similar issue has been adjudicated and decided in favor of the assessee. For the sake of convenience, the relevant findings given by the Tribunal from para 4 to 5 at pages 5 to 6 in its order dated 30.4.2010 passed in assessee s own case in ITA No. 238/D/2008 (A.Y. 2004-05) and ITA No. 425/D/2008 (A.Y. 2004-05) in the case of ACIT vs. M/s Sadhu Forging Ltd. is reproduced as below:- 4. We have considered the rival contentions, gone through the orders of the authorities below and found from the record that assessee was having four industrial units located at different sites. Unit-'-III situat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re being spread over to Unit II III on the basis of sale, and the interest paid for unit IV was in respect of loan taken for unit IV only, therefore there is no reason for spreading the interest on loan of Unit IV, over other units including the Unit III which is eligible for claim of exemption u/s 80IB. It was noted that sale of Unit III is 22.88% of the gross sales. Therefore, the AO concluded that the total other interest should be spread over uniformly to all units in the proportion of gross sale. Accordingly, he calculated other interest charges allocable to eligible Unit III at ₹ 21,79,684/- (22.88% of ₹ 95,26,591/-). The assessee company had assigned other interest at ₹ 10,36,077/-. Therefore, the AO had reduced t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d for unit IV was exclusively utilized for its gear division, there was no reason for spreading interest ofRs.63,08 lakhs over other units. In respect of other interest on working capital loan of ₹ 23.43 Iakhs, the assessee itself has on allocated the same to Unit I, II and III based on sales figure. Similarly, interest on unsecured loans was also allocated to all units as per utilization of funds. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A) for deleting the reduction of eligible profit of Unit III by the amount of interest of ₹ 11.43 lakhs, while computing claim of deduction u/s 80IB. It is pertinent to mention here that in the AY 2003-04, against the order of AO for reducing profit of unit III by the amoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
