ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 5(1)(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S. PAGE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1832/BANG/2016Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 November 2019AY 2011-124 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that while previous orders in the assessee's own case had allowed the deduction, later orders on identical issues had remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to restore the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order allowing a deduction under Section 80JJAA to the assessee. The Assessing Officer had disallowed this deduction, stating that the employment of new workmen was not provided for in the section.

What were the issues?

Whether the deduction under Section 80JJAA for employment of new workmen is allowable, and if so, for how many assessment years.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80JJAA

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCHES : “B”, BANGALORE

Before: SHRI A.K.GARODIA & SMT.BEENA PILLAI

For Appellant: Smt Suman Lunkar, CA
For Respondent: Shri Kumar Ajeet, Addl.CIT, Smt Suman Lunkar, CA

PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER : Present appeal has been filed by revenue against order dated 08/07/16 passed by Ld. CIT (A)-5, Bangalore for assessment year 2011-12 on following grounds of appeal:

1.

(B)/2016 Page 2 of 4 “1. The order of the CIT(A)-5, Bangalore is opposed to the law and not on the facts and circumstances of the case. 2.Whether the CIT(A) is right, in law in holding that the deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 870JJA to be allowed without appreciating the meaning of the section, which does not allow the deduction for earlier previous years other than the one relevant to the assessment year.

3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any other grounds on or before hearing of the appeal”.

2.

Brief facts of the case are as under: Assessee filed its return of income declaring total income of Rs.82,45,64,615/-. Ld.AO completed assessment under section 143 (3) read with section 144C of the Act, determining total income at Rs.85,80,64,750/-. The disallowances were made by Ld.AO pertains to section 14A and deduction disallowed under section 80JJAA of the Act. Ld.AO disallowed deduction u/s 80JJAA by holding that deduction has been claimed by assessee in respect of employment of new workmen during previous which is not provided suggestive in the provisions. The Ld.AO therefore, disallowed excess deduction claimed in computation amounting to Rs.3,14,48,959/-.

3.

Aggrieved by addition made by Ld.AO, assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A) who allowed the claim of assessee. 4. Aggrieved by order of Ld.CIT(A), revenue is in appeal before us now.

ITA No.1832(B)/2016 Page 3 of 4 4.1 Only issue alleged by revenue is in respect of the deduction allowed under section 80JJAA of the Act by Ld.CIT (A). Before us, Ld.AR placed reliance on Tribunal order in assessee’s own case for various assessment years have been filed. It is observed that this Tribunal for assessment year 2007-08 in vide order dated 24/07/15 held that once new workmen is employed in previous year and works for 300 days in that year, additional wages paid to him is to be allowed as deduction at 30% of such additional wages to him in that year and the same should be allowed as deduction for three assessment years and that such workmen need not be employed for subsequent period to claim deduction under section 80JJAA of the Act. It was held that once deduction is allowed in first year then 30% of such additional wages is to be allowed as deduction in each of subsequent two years. However, for assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07 in ITA Nos. 151 and 152/B/2016 vide order dated 16/12/16 and for assessment year 2010-11 in ITA (TP)A No.163/B/2015 vide order dated 24/06/16 remanded the issue to Ld.AO for fresh consideration. Since the later orders on identical issues were remanded by this Tribunal to Ld.AO for fresh consideration, we deem it fit to restore this issue to Ld.AO for fresh consideration, in accordance with law, as applicable during relevant period.

5.

Ld. CIT DR did not object for the same. Accordingly, ground raised

by revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes. (B)/2016 Page 4 of 4. In the result, appeal filed by revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on

More judgments on Section 80JJAA

All 275 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80JJAA →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →