9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 110X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... year and by this amount the deduction u/s 80IE has been reduced in the said year since the deduction is available for the unit for consecutive 10 years. AO’s action in treating the excess provision written back as income cannot be justified, hence deleted - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - ITA No. 1114/JP/2016 - - - Dated:- 24-4-2017 - Shri Bhagchand, Accountant Member Revenue by : Smt. Poonam Rai (DCIT) Assessee by : Shri B.B. Maheshwari (CA) ORDER Per : Bhagchand, A. M. This is an appeal filed by the revenue emanates from the order dated 18/10/2016 passed by the ld CIT(A)-I, Jaipur for the A.Y. 2012-13, wherein the revenue has taken following grounds of appeal: 1. Whether on the facts and in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s on this issue, the ld. CIT(A) has decided both the issues by holding as under:- (i) The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a joint venture firm between M/s Om Metals Infra Project Ltd and JSC (JV) Ukrain. It has been awarded a work of manufacturing, fabrication, erection and commissioning of Penstock, Steel Liners, Steel Radial gates of Hydro- mechanical work/equipment in the State of Arunachal Pradesh. The work was awarded by NIPCO. The AO has allowed deduction U/s 80IE of Income Tax Act to the appellant, but excluded the miscellaneous income and foreign currency gain by observing that for claiming deduction u/s 80IE of the Act: (i) the profit and gain should be derived by an undertaking to which this section app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t has to purchase the raw materials within the country as well has to import and whatever price it paid for the import, is claimed against the receipt. The imported raw material was purchased on the basis of letter of credit (L/C), and while making the payment of L/C, the rate of foreign currency (US$) was reduced and, therefore, the payment was made a little less than the billed amount, and, therefore, the difference was created as income in fluctuation of foreign currency standards. However the AO treated it as income from other sources which is totally wrong since it is very much a part and parcel of the manufacturing unit of the JV. It was further submitted that the for the AY 2011-12, the Ld. CIT(A) has allowed deduction u/s 80IE of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on u/s 80IE of the Act, on this also. In view of these facts and circumstances as discussed above, AO is directed to allow deduction u/s 80IE in this regard and also to delete the addition of ₹ 22,41,619/-. The revenue has not rebutted these findings by placing any contrary material on record. It is also not the case of the revenue that the raw material as imported by the assessee was not utilized in the manufacturing process. Therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere into the order of Id. CIT (A). The ground of the revenue is rejected. 5.3. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. The Id. CIT (A) has given the finding of facts as under: 3.2.2. I have duly considered AO's con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
