ACIT, CIRCLE-8(2), NEW DELHI vs. EXCEL PACK LTD, NEW DELHI
In favour of the Revenue: the Revenue's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the deduction under Section 80IC, as the products were correctly classified under Chapter Heading 7607 and not a negative list. This decision followed earlier judgments in the assessee's own case for other assessment years.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed deduction under Section 80IC for its business of manufacturing Induction Heat Seal Cap Liner material and Induction Wads. The Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction, stating the products fell under a negative list. The CIT(A) allowed the deduction, relying on Board Circulars and CETA classification.
What were the issues?
Whether the products manufactured by the assessee are eligible for deduction under Section 80IC, and if their classification under CETA is correct.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘B’NEW DELHI
Challenging the order dated 20/4/2017 in appeal No. 59/16-17 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3 Delhi (“the Ld. CIT(A)”), for the assessment year 2013-14, in the case of Excel pack Ltd, Revenue preferred this appeal on the ground that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the deduction under section 80IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”).
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacture of Induction Heat Seal Cap Liner material and Induction Wads. For the assessment year 2013-14 it has filed its return of income on 30/9/2013 declaring an income of Rs.2,84,91,000/-and claimed deduction under section 80 IC of the Act to the tune of Rs.1,19,73,540/-. Learned Assessing Officer, however, held that the products manufactured by the assessee fall under schedule 13 (at serial No. 19) which is a negative list and, therefore, profitderived from the manufacture of these products is not eligible for deduction under section 80 IC of the Act.
Assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A), as a matter of fact, found that the products manufactured by the assessee do not fall under tariff No. 4811.20, 4811.31 and rather the products fall under the tariff 7607-20-90 of CETA and while referring to the circular No. 28/89 dated 26/9/1989 and 141/2/2003 dated 6/10/2003 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), New Delhi allowed deduction under section 80 IC of the Act to the assessee. Revenue is therefore in this appeal.
At the outset, Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) followed the Board Circulars for granting relief to the assessee. He further submitted that under similar set of facts for the assessment years 2010-11 and 2012-13 a coordinate Bench of this Tribunal dealt with this issue in assessee’s own case in and 6550/Del/2015 and by order dated 18/02/2019 Tribunal returned a finding that inasmuch as the industrial unit was set up on 26/10/2006, and the initial assessment year in which deduction under section 80 IC of the Act was claim, was assessment year 2007-08 from each year onwards such a claim was allowed to the assessee, and, therefore, while following the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court High Court in the case of International Tractors Limited297 CTR 119 Tribunal returned a finding that the assessee is entitled to the deduction in section 80 IC of the Act and the classification of aluminium foil laminated on both sides with plastic films would be under Chapter Headings 7607 instead of Chapter Headings 3920.
Facts submitted by the Ld. AR are not in dispute and Ld. DR does not controvert the same. A copy of the order dated 18/02/2019 in and 94/del/2014 and the 6550/del/2015 for assessment years 2010-11 and 2012-13 is produced. We have perused the same.
Facts being identical, we find that the issues involved in this matter are directly and substantially covered in assessee’s own case in earlier years and while respectfully following the same we hold that the assessee is entitled to deduction under section 80 IC of the Act and the addition to the tune of Rs.1,19,73,540/-by disallowance of the same, is directed to be deleted. Grounds of appeal are answered accordingly.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 6th January, 2020.
More judgments on Section 80IC
- Neel Metal Products Ltd., New Delhi vs DCIT, Circle-18(1), New DelhiITA 5935/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: Disposed10 Sept 2026AY 2012-13
- M/S. Neel Metal Products Ltd., New Delhi vs Addl. CIT, New DelhiITA 386/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: Disposed10 Sept 2026AY 2011-12
- M/S Neel Metal Products Ltd., New Delhi vs ACIT, New DelhiITA 3919/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: Disposed10 Sept 2026AY 2009-10
- Indus India, C/O Indus Appliances Pvt Ltd vs ITO, ParwanooITA 852/CHANDI/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed6 Aug 2026AY 2016-17
- Corbett Nature Reserve, Ramnagar vs Income Tax Officer, Ram NagarITA 65/RPR/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed28 Jul 2026AY 2021-22
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S.Sri Satya Sai Constructions vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- Anisha Busa vs. Sibar Institute Of Dental SciencesAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sri Satya Sai Constructions vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S. Sikka Motors PVT LTD vs. Union Of INDIA & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Shri Yaras Suresh Babu Prabhu Kumar vs. The Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026