9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 258X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase of Stove Craft (2017 (12) TMI 69 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT) that the Revenue has not disputed this fact and which in the case of the present assessee is evident from the assessment orders also. We therefore reject this contention of the ld. DR. Thus the order of the ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the Assessing Officer is directed to grant the assessee's deduction of 100% of its eligible profit. - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA No.1654/Chd/2017, ITA No.1655/Chd/2017 And ITA No.1656/Chd/2017 - - - Dated:- 31-1-2018 - MS. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Appellant : Shri Harry Rikhy, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri Ashish Abrol, CIT DR ORDER PER BENCH: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... our of the assessee vide its order dated 28.11.2017 and the assessee checked its records and found that the assessees firm had got converted into Private Ltd. Company on 20.10.2011 having the same business and address and that while the company had filed appeal for the same assessment year i.e. Assessment Year 2012-13 before the I.T.A.T., the assessee s firm had due to oversight failed to do so. It was, therefore, contended for the aforesaid reasons the filing of the appeal before the I.T.A.T. was delayed by 358 days and it was requested, therefore, that on account of the afore-stated reasonable cause, the delay be condoned. 4. The ld. DR did not object to the same. 5. In view of the same, we condone the delay in filing of appeal in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed cases dated 27.05.2015. 8. Aggrieved by the same, the assessees have come up in appeal before us, raising the following common ground in all the above appeals: 2. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is unjustified in upholding the order of the Ld. Assessing Officer regarding restricting the claim of deduction u/s 80IC to 25% as against 100% claimed by the appellant as FY 2010-11 being the initial assessment year on the basis of substantial expansion done during that year after fulfilling the requisite conditions u/s 80IC of I.T. Act, 1961. This disallowance is uncalled for and deserves to be deleted as it is covered by the latest order of the Hon'ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of M/s Stovecraft ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... period for which they were not entitled to the benefit of deduction under Section 80-IB. (b) Such of those units which have commenced production after 7,1.2003 and carried out substantial expansion prior to 1.4.2012, would also be entitled to benefit of deduction at different rates of percentage stipulated under Section 80-IC. (c) Substantial expansion cannot be confined to one expansion. As long as requirement of Section 80-(C(8)(ix) is met, there can be number of multiple substantial expansions. (d) Correspondingly, there can be more than one initial Assessment Years. (e.) Within the window period of 7.1.2013 upto 1.4.2012, an undertaking or an enterprise can be entitled to deduction @ 100% for a period of more tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l of the order of the Assessing Officer, that this fact of the assessee having carried out substantial expansion had never been disputed by the Assessing Officer and similar view had also been taken by the Hon ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of M/s Stovecraft India and others (Supra). The ld. Counsel of the assessee drew our attention to the relevant finding of the I.T.A.T. in this regard at Paras 4 5 of the order as under: 4. No one appeared on behalf of the assessee. However, Ld. DR fairly admitted that the issue is squarely covered by the above decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court. She, however, has submitted that the issue be restored to the file of the Assessing officer for verification as to whether ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... verification of the fact of having undertaken substantial expansion has also been dealt by the ITAT in its decision in the case of one of the assessees, M/s Security products Pvt. Ltd.(supra,) rejecting the contention on account of the specific finding of the Jurisdictional High Court while deciding the issue in favour of the assessee in the case of Stove Craft(supra) that the Revenue has not disputed this fact and which in the case of the present assessees is evident from the assessment orders also. We therefore reject this contention of the ld. DR. 13. In view of the same, the order of the ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the Assessing Officer is directed to grant the assessees deduction of 100% of its eligible profit. 14. In the result ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
