9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1846X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and acceptance. After exports are affected, for claiming drawback the assessee has to file application within the prescribed time before the authorities in terms of various rules and regulations. The said Rules/regulations stipulate conditions when drawback is payable or not payable. Application claiming drawback is merely a claim. The amount claimed has to be verified, quantified and determined by the authorities who are empowered under the statutory provisions - decided against assessee Disallowance of depreciation on computer accessories and UPS - Held that:- Claim allowed as relying on COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS ORIENT CERAMICS & INDS. LTD [2011 (1) TMI 26 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS BSES YAMUNA P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . It was however, revised to ₹ 38,70,04,947/- in the revised return of income. The Assessing Officer however disallowed the claim on the ground that during the year under consideration the investment in plant and machinery is worth ₹ 52,47,65,905/- and not ₹ 1,00,00,000/- which is the upper ceiling for small scale industry. According to the AO, as per section 80IA only small scale industrial undertaking is eligible for the deduction and since the appellant was a medium scale industry, therefore, disallowed the claim. 5. The ld CIT(A) however deleted disallowance following the order of his predecessor and ITAT in the case of the assessee, for Assessment Year 1998-99 to Assessment Year 2005-06 on the very same issue where ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed under section 80IA for A Y 1997-98 was subsequently withdrawn or not under section 147 of the IT Act, so as to effect the finding given by the Hon'ble ITAT that once the eligibility of small scale industrial undertaking stands established in the first year (i.e. A Y 1997-98, then subsequent years claim is to be allowed irrespective of investment being more than the prescribed ceiling to be treated as small scale industrial undertaking. In view of the finding given by the Hon ble ITAT in earlier years appellate orders holding the appellant company as eligible for deduction under section 80IA, the claim of deduction of ₹ 38,74,04,947/- is allowed to the appellant and disallowance is deleted. 7. On consideration of the facts a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncial year. The appellant claims that above claim as accrued and assessed in the subsequent years therefore same cannot be included during the year. The case of the appellant is that making of a claim should not be taken as accrual of income as the claim was subject to uncertainties. That after making exports the appellant acquires eligibility to make a claim for excise duty refund which is only an incomplete entitlement. That after a claim is filed the concerned authority examines, verifies and processes the same in accordance with the guidelines as prescribed in the notification issued by Central Excise, (as referred above) and the claim may be accepted and approved at full value or lower value or even be rejected, if the prescribed proce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant in terms of section 28. The Hon'ble ITAT dismissed the appeal of the department wherein deletion of the addition made by the CIT (A) on account of excise refund accrued was challenged by the department. In view of the above discussions the appeal is allowed on this issue and the addition for ₹ 3,72,29,2191- made on this account is directed to be deleted. 10. We find that the appeal filed by the revenue against the order of the Tribunal for Assessment Year 2005-06 in the case of the assessee stands dismissed by the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court vide judgment dated 06th September 2013. The Hon ble High court has held as under:- As far as question of accrual of income on drawback which has not been approved ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
