9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1767X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alid ground to interfere with the findings given by the ld. CIT(A) and accordingly, do not see any merit in this appeal of the assessee. - Decided in favour of revenue - ITA No. 1037/Chd./2016 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 - - - Dated:- 20-12-2016 - Sh. N. K. Saini and Sh. Ravish Sood, JJ. Assessee by: Sh. Puneet Gupta, AR Revenue by: Sh. Manjit Singh, Sr. DR ORDER N. K. Saini, This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 29.07.2016 of ld. CIT(A), Panchkula. 2. The only effective ground raised in this appeal reads as under: The ld. CIT(A) is wrong in disallowing the benefit of substantial expansion u/s 80IC(2) and confirming the deduction u/s 80IC only to the extent of 25% as against 100% by hol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring the financial year 2010-11. The AO was of the view that the assessee was eligible for deduction u/s 80IC of the Act to the extent of 100% for 5 years period of assessment year 2006-07 to assessment year 2010-11. However, 100% deduction against eligible profit was claimed for the assessment year 2013-14, which was 8th year of its production. He, therefore, asked the assessee to furnish justification for claiming deduction u/s 80IC of the Act @100% in the 8th year. In response, the assessee submitted that the year under consideration was a third year instead of 8th year of production of the assessee because substantial expansion was made during the financial year 2010-11. It was further stated that an entity would claim deduction for 100 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee u/s 80IC of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the ld. CIT(A) who decided the issue against the assessee by following his own decisions for the assessment year 2011-12 and 2012-13 vide order dated 19.09.2014 and 09.09.2015 respectively. He also followed the decision of the ITAT Chandigarh Bench in the case of Hycron Electronics Vs ITO in ITA No.798/Chd./2012 and 374/Chd./2014 wherein it was held as under: In view of the above detailed discussion we hold that the assessee before us i.e. M/s Hycron Electronics in ITA No. 798/Chd./2012 is entitled to only 25% of deduction during the present year because the assessee has already availed the period of full deduction @100% in the earlie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
