9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 716X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Arvind Pinto For the Respondent : Mr. K Gopal a/w Mr Jitendra Singh a/w Ms Neha Paranjpe ORDER P. C. ITXA No.1974 of 2013 is not on board, upon mentioning taken up for hearing along with ITXA No.1735 and ITXA No.1731 of 2013. 2. These Appeals by the Revenue challenge the order dated 20 March 2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(Tribunal). By the impugned order the Tribunal has dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT is justified in dismissing the revenue's appeal without appreciating the fact that the AO in the Assessment order for AY 2004-05 had clearly established that the assessee had failed to prove that it had purchased new plant and machinery and hence was ineligible for claim of deduction u/s 10A within the provisions of section 10A(2)(iii) read w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the subsequent assessment years can arise unless the benefit granted in the first year is withdrawn. The impugned order while dismissing the Revenue's appeal followed the decision of this Court in CIT v/s Western Outdoor Interactive P. Ltd [2012] 349 ITR 309 (Bom) and CIT v Paul Brothers [1995] 216 ITR 548 (Bom) wherein it was held that once a benefit of deduction was extended in respect of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee for the A.Y 2002-2003. In the above order it is clearly recorded that the deduction sought under Section 10A of the Act and allowed by the Assessing officer was to the extent of Rs. 7.69 crores. 7. In view of the above, the contention by Mr.Pinto that the order of the Tribunal for the A.Y.2002-2003 could not be challenged in appeal before the Court in view of low tax effect is not factually co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
