9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 460X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tical / inter-connected, therefore, for the sake of convenience, they are clubbed, heard together and disposed of this consolidated order. Appeal wise adjudication is given in the following paragraphs of this order. 2. The common issue raised in all the Revenue‟s appeals relates to the allowability of deduction / exemption u/s 10A of the Act. For the sake of reference, we reproduce the grounds of the Revenue for the AY 2007-2008, which read as under:- "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld CIT (A) erred in allowing exemption u/s 10A amounting to Rs. 3,04,28,384/- without appreciating the fact that the assessee had not manufactured / produced any article but merely had processed the articles. 2. On t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upra) is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. 4. On the said facts to apply the said judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court in the case of Paul Brothers (supra), we have perused the ratio laid down in the said judgment and find the following are lines are relevant to make this order selfcontained and the same reads as under:- "Held:-...........(iii) unless deductions allowed for the assessment year...............were withdrawn, they could not be denied for subsequent years.........." 5. From the above, it is settled legal proposition in law that in the matters relating to the claim of deduction / exemptions, it is the requirement of that the initial year should be the year of scrutiny of the claims relating to the se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the case of Paul Brothers (supra). Following the same for the sake of consistency and also considering the common facts, we dismiss the grounds raised by the Revenue. Accordingly, grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed. 8. In the assessee‟s appeal, the following grounds are raised and the same read as under:- "1. (i) the Ld CIT (A) erred in confirming the order of Assessing Officer wherein the profit of the 10A unit was reworked to allocate all common head expenses on basis of turnover as against on actual basis returned by the appellant thereby reducing the exemption u/s 10A from Rs. 2,62,73,762/- to Rs. 2,51,72,542/-. (ii) In doing so, the Ld CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the appellant‟s method was allowed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the assessee has an eligible „Teledyne‟ unit and ineligible „non-teledyne‟ unit. So far as the unit specific expenses are concerned, there is no dispute. However, regarding the common expenses, assessee adopted different methods depending on the nature of accounts debited to the P & L Account involved. As per the working, the exemption claimed u/s 10A by the assessee in the return of income works out to Rs. 2,62,73,762/-. In the assessment, AO adopted the „turnover basis‟ uniformly for allocating such common expenses. As per the AO, the allowable expenditure u/s 10A works out to Rs. 2,51,72,542/-. The difference derived by the AO works out to Rs. 11.1 laks (rounded of). The argument of the Ld Counsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act in the said clause. It is the argument of the Ld Counsel for the assessee that the provisions of sub-section (6), which was amended w.e.f. 10.2.2000, will have a overriding effect on the said amendment brought in by the Finance Act, 2007. Consequently, the MAT provisions do not apply to the assessee. For this proposition, Ld Counsel for the assessee brought our attention to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Genesys International Corpn. Ltd vs. ACIT (2013) 55 SOT 10, dated 1.12.2012, which is relevant for the following proposition:- "A unit in a SEZ will be covered by sub-section (6) to section 115JB of the Act irrespective of the fact that those units were claiming deduction u/s 10A of the Act." He also relied on anoth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee‟s appeal for the AY 2009-10, we notice that the only issue raised in the appeal relates to the applicability of provisions of sub-section (6) of section 115JB of the Act qua the amendment to clause (f) and (ii) of Explanation- 1 to section 115JB of the Act. We have already dealt with this issue while adjudicating Ground no.2 of the assessee‟s appeal for the AY 2008-2009. Considering the commonality, the ground raised by the assessee in the instant AY 2009-2010 is allowed in favour of the assessee. 18. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No.5995/M/2013 (AY 2010-2011) (By Revenue) 19. This appeal filed by the Revenue on 10.10.2013 is against the order of the CIT (A)-16, Mumbai dated 1.7.2013 for the AY 201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
