ASST.C.I.T., BELLARY vs. M/S TRIDENT MINERALS 100 % EOU, BELLARY

PDF · subscribers
ITA 22/BANG/2016Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 April 2017AY 2010-114 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order in principle, following a previous decision in the assessee's own case. However, the matter was restored to the AO for limited factual verification regarding the commencement of the undertaking's operations.

What were the facts?

The revenue appealed against the deletion of disallowance of deduction claimed by the assessee under Section 10B of the Income Tax Act. The assessee filed a cross-objection supporting the CIT(A)'s order.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the eligibility of the assessee for deduction under Section 10B. A secondary issue was the factual determination of the first year of operation to ascertain the expiry of the deduction period.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCH ‘A’, BANGALORE

Before: SHRI A. K. GARODIA & SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO

For Appellant: Shri B.S.Balanchandran, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri G.R.Reddy, CIT –DR-I, Shri B.S.Balanchandran, Advocate

O R D E R PER SHRI A.K.GARODIA, AM

Both these appeals are filed by the revenue which are directed against two separate orders of the ld. CIT(A), Gulbarga dated 23-10-2015 for assessment year 2010-11 and dated 30-11-2015 for assessment year 2011-

12.

The Cross Objection is filed by the assessee for assessment year :

2011-12.

2.

All these were heard together and are being disposed of by way of this common order for the sake of convenience.

3.

At the very outset, it was submitted by the ld. AR of the assessee that in both the appeals of the revenue, the only issue involved is regarding deletion of disallowance of assessee’s claim for deduction u/s 10B of the IT Act, 1961 and the amounts of disallowance made by the AO and deleted by the ld. CIT(A) is Rs.31,88,30,372/- in assessment year 2010-11 and Rs.53,37,36,176/- in assessment year 2011-12. He submitted that this issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal order in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2009-10 in and CO No.85(Bang)/2013 dated 07-02-2014. He submitted a copy of this Tribunal order.

4.

Regarding the Cross Objection of the assessee, he submitted that the same is only in support of the order of the ld. CIT(A).

5.

The ld. DR of the revenue supported the assessment order. He also submitted that this is not coming out from the material available on record as to what is the first year of operation of the assessee’s undertaking and therefore, to verify this factual aspect, the matter should be restored back to the file of the AO.

6.

We have considered the rival submissions. We find that the ld.

CIT(A) has followed the Tribunal order in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2009-10 and decided the issue in favour of the assessee.

Since no difference in facts could be pointed out by the ld. DR of the revenue, in principle, we find no reason to take a contrary view in the present two years but at the same time, in the absence of the materials as to what was the first year of operation of the assessee’s undertaking, we feel it proper to restore the matter back to the file of the AO for limited purpose of examining the factual aspect as to whether the period of 10 years available for claiming deduction u/s 10B has expired or not and if it is found that the same has not expired, then deduction allowable to the assessee u/s 10B of the IT Act, 1961 should be allowed to the assessee. With these observations, we confirm the order of the ld. CIT(A) in principle, but restore the matter back to the file of AO for a factual verification as discussed above.

7.

Regarding the cross objection of the assessee, we hold that the same is liable to be dismissed because it is merely in support of the order of the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed.

8.

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above and the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page.

More judgments on Section 10B

All 1,217 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →