9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 765X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld that the allocation was justified and dismissed the appeal of the appellant on this issue. The facts in the appellant s case are identical to the facts in AY 2009-10. Following the decision of the CIT(A) in the appellant s own case for AY 2009-10 the allocation of depreciation made by the AO between Delhi unit and Manesar unit is confirmed. Denial of deduction u/s 10B considering increased profit due to computation of income u/s 40(a)(ia) - It is an admitted fact on record that the computation of deduction u/s 10B for the year under consideration has been done by the AO based on the figures of profit shown by the appellant. This computation of deduction u/s 10B is as per the provisions of the law and requires no interference. The is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f material available on record and after hearing the Ld. D.R. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is engaged in the business of Manufacturing and Selling Paper Packaging, having 02 units at Manesar and Delhi. The assessee claimed it as 100% export oriented unit by claiming deduction under section 10B of the I.T. Act, 1961. The assessee filed its return of income declaring income of ₹ 50,47,026/- on 14.10.2010. A survey under section 133A of the I.T. Act, 1961 was conducted at the business premises of the assessee at Manesar and Delhi on 13.12.2011. Based on the documents impounded from the business premises of the assessee as well as the statement recorded during the course of survey, the A.O. held that the Komori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upheld the action of the A.O. 5. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds : 1. That the assessment order is bad in law on the facts of the case. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in upholding the allocation of depreciation of ₹ 75,04,165/- of the independent non-eligible Delhi Unit to the 10B eligible Unit Manesar and thus reducing the allowable deduction u/s 10B to NIL as against the claim of ₹ 40,62,099/-, without any powers under the Act for such allocation of depreciation and based on whim, fancies and irrelevant factors, not related to the year under consideration. That such allocation needs to be deleted and the claim of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the I.T. Act, 1961 on account of re-computation of depreciation is concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) observed as under: 5.3. I have carefully considered the appellant s submissions. Similar allocation of depreciation was made in the appellant s own case for AY 2009-10. The appellant filed an appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) vide his order dated 03.03.2015 in Appeal no. 338/11- 12 held that the allocation was justified and dismissed the appeal of the appellant on this issue. The facts in the appellant s case are identical to the facts in AY 2009-10. Following the decision of the CIT(A) in the appellant s own case for AY 2009-10 the allocation of depreciation made by the AO between Delhi unit and Manesar unit is confirmed. This ground of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : 8. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under: 1. That the assessment order is bad in law on the facts of the case. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in upholding the allocation of depreciation of ₹ 57,58,396/- of the independent non-eligible Delhi Unit to the 10B eligible Unit Manesar and thus reducing the allowable deduction u/s 10B to NIL as against the claim of ₹ 57,58,396/-, without any powers under the Act for such allocation of depreciation and based on whim, fancies and irrelevant factors, not related to the year under consideration. That such allocation needs to be deleted and the claim of the assesse needs to be allowed. 3. That the assessee craves indulgence to amend, alter, add or mo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
