9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 711X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the character of sale and hence is income derived from industrial undertaking. The ld CIT(A) has also given these reasons for deciding the issue in favour of the assessee. DR could not show us any reason that why above sum cannot be income derived from industrial undertaking. No infirmity in the order of the ld CIT(A) in holding that customer advances written back is income derived from the industrial undertaking as it has direct nexus with it, hence, eligible for deduction u/s 80IC Sundry balances of provisions written back as income derived from industrial undertaking and eligible for deduction u/s 80IC - Held that:- CIT(A)correctly decided the issue in favour of the assessee. As the provision made was considered as reduction in eligible profit its reversal should be considered as income of undertaking. Miscellaneous receipt received by the assessee is not income derived from industrial undertaking and therefore, same is not eligible for deduction u/s 80IC - Held that:- We have already decided this issue in appeal of the assessee for AY 2010-11 in this order. Therefore, following the same reasoning we hold that miscellaneous income of the assessee is not eligible for deduct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issions before the Hon'ble CIT(Appeals) Dehradun in support of our appeal against the order of AO, the same have been deliberated upon in detail and CIT(Appeals) Dehradun has passed his order on merits of the case. Assesee thus wishes to be present during the hearing of the case in order to re-present his contention if necessary. 2. Assessee has filed a cross-appeal bearing No. 315/Del/2015 on an addition upheld by the CIT(Appeals) Dehradun relating to the same asst. year; hence the assessee prays for clubbing of both appeals in order to arrive at a clear decision on the matters raised by the AO in his original order dt 29.01.2013. 4. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal in CO No. 315/Del/2015 for the Assessment Year 2010-11:- 1. Because on facts and in circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) 1 Dehradun has erred in not allowing the benefit of deduction u/s 80- IC on the miscellaneous receipts recovered from customers on account of business expenses and related costs, despite the same being eligible to deduction 2. Because on facts and in circumstances of the case, the CIT(A)-1 Dehradun has erred by not appreciating the submissions made b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IT Vs. Metrochem Industries Ltd. Both these decisions have considered the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Liberty India Vs. CIT 317 ITR 218. In view of this we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld CIT(A) in holding that foreign exchange gain is income derived from industrial undertaking and is eligible for deduction u/s 80IC of the Act. Ground No 1 is dismissed. 10. The second ground of appeal of revenue is against holding that customer advances written back is also income derived from industrial undertaking. 11. The ld Departmental Representative relied upon the order of the ld Assessing Officer whereas, the ld AR relied upon the order of the ld CIT(A). 12. We have carefully considered the rival contentions as well as perused the orders of the lower authorities. The customer advances are in the nature of advances against the various orders. When such jobs are cancelled by the customer the assessee recovers the cost of material and consumable supply to the customer from the advance received and shows it as advances written back. Therefore, this partakes the character of sale and hence is income derived from industrial undertaking. The ld CIT(A) has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he industrial undertaking, hence, is not eligible for deduction u/s 80IC of the Act. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld CIT(A). Accordingly, the ITA NO. 315/Del/2015 filed by the assessee is dismissed. Assessment Year 2011-12 20. For Assessment Year 2011-12 the order of the ld CIT(A)-I, Dehradun dated 10.02.2014 is challenged by revenue raising solitary ground of appeal in ITA No. 208/Del/2015:- 1. The ld CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in holding that customer advances written back amount to sale and can be said to be derived from the eligible business u/s 80IC ignoring the ration establishes by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India Vs. CIT 183 Taxmann 349 (2009) as per which the income derived from industrial undertaking has been held to be eligible for the said deduction and not the income attributable to industrial undertaking. 21. The assessee has also challenged by filing a CO No. 251/Del/2015 for the Assessment Year 2011-12 raising following grounds of appeal:- 1. Respondent (assessee) wishes to affirm that we have filed detailed submissions before the Hon'ble CIT(Appeals) Dehradun in support of our a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bunal if the tax effect is less than ₹ 20 lakhs. Therefore, he pleaded that the appeal of the revenue be decided as per the instruction of the CBDT. Ld AR also reiterated same facts. 26. We have heard both the sides on the issue and perused the material. We find that the CBDT vide circular dated 11th July 2018 has revised the monetary limit for filing the appeal by the department before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hon ble High Courts and Hon ble Supreme Court. The relevant para of the aforesaid circular is reproduced as under :- 3. Henceforth, appeals/SLPs shall not be filed in cases where the tax effect does not exceed the monetary limits given hereunder :- Sl. No. Appeals in Income-tax matters Monetary Limit(in Rs.) 1. Before Appellate Tribunal 20,00,000 2. Before High Court 50,00,000 3. Before Supreme Court 1,00,00,000 It is clarified that an appeal should not be filed merely because the tax e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
