9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 328X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd any reason to interfere with the decision of Commissioner (Appeals) on this issue. The ground raised being devoid of merit is dismissed. Addition made to closing inventory - HELD THAT:- Since, assessee s claim of write off has been fully allowed in A.Y. 2009 10, the relief granted in the impugned assessment year has to be withdrawn. Learned Departmental Representative agreed with the aforesaid submission of learned Authorised Representative. Having considered rival submissions, we find that assessee s claim of write off of inventories amounting to ₹ 14,40,81,661/ stands allowed fully in A.Y. 2009 10 by the decision of the Tribunal, as referred to above. Thus, the additional relief granted to the assessee in the impugned assessment year has to be withdrawn. Therefore, the decision of learned Commissioner (Appeals) on the issue is reversed. Ground raised is allowed. - ITA no.4438/Mum./2016 - - - Dated:- 30-10-2019 - Shri Saktijit Dey, Judicial Member And Shri N.K. Pradhan, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Nitin Waghmode, Sr. AR For the Revenue : H.P. Mahajani Nikita Goyal ORDER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Development Commissioner on 26.2.2010 the Assessing Officer observed, it is not possible for the assessee to achieve export worth of ₹ 14,04,18,342/ in such a short span. Further, he observed, the assessee has not produced any evidence to prove that the export proceeds were realized within the prescribed time limit provided in section 10B of the Act. Without prejudice, the Assessing Officer observed, while computing deduction under section 10B of the Act, the additional deduction claimed under section 35(2AB) of the Act has to be reduced. On the basis of aforesaid reasoning the Assessing Officer ultimately disallowed assesse s claim of deduction under section 10B of the Act. 3. Being aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before learned Commissioner (Appeals). In course of appeal proceedings, the assessee apart from making elaborate submissions in support of deduction claimed under section 10B of the Act also furnished some more evidences. The submissions made and evidences produced by the assessee were forwarded to the Assessing Officer seeking his comments/report. As observed by learned Commissioner (Appeals), in his report dated 9.9.2014 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eduction under section 10B of the Act in respect of Mangalore unit. He submitted, subsequently erstwhile Sequent Scientific Ltd. merged with the present assessee PI Drugs Limited under a scheme of amalgamation and was again renamed as Sequent Scientific Limited. He submitted, substantial additions were made to fix assets of the undertaking including building, land and machinery after amalgamation. Thus, he submitted, the Mangalore unit was not formed by splitting up of an existing business. Referring to section 10B (7A) of the Act, learned Authorised Representative submitted, as per the aforesaid provision the assessee is eligible to claim deduction under section 10B of the Act. To substantiate his submissions ld. Authorised Representative took us through various documentary evidences compiled in the paper book including the approval by the Development Commissioner and subsequent ratification by Board of Approval. Thus, he submitted assessee having fulfilled the conditions of section 10B of the Act is eligible to claim deduction. In so far as the issue of reduction of expenses claimed under section 35(2AB) of the Act, learned Authorised Representative strongly relied upon the obser ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... king before the expiry of period of deduction specified under section 10B to another Indian company in a scheme of amalgamation of demerger, no deduction would be allowed to the amalgamating/demerged company for the previous year in which amalgamation/demerger takes place. However, the benefit of deduction would be available to the amalgamated company as would have applied to the amalgamating or the demerged company had amalgamation or demerger not taken place. In the facts of the present case, admittedly, the Mangalore unit of erstwhile company was transferred to the assessee under a scheme of amalgamation. Thus, the provision of sub section (7A) of section 10B of the Act would be applicable to the present case. Accordingly it cannot be said that the Mangalore unit has been formed by splitting up of an existing business. Having held so, it is now necessary to examine the doubt raised by the Assessing Officer with regard to the quantum of export turnover achieved by the assessee during the year. The Assessing Officer had observed that considering the fact that the Mangalore unit was approved on 26.02.2010 it would not have been possible to export goods worth ₹ 14,04,18,342/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
