Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “E”: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU & SHRI ANADI N MISHRA
This appeal filed by the revenue directed against the order of Ld.CIT (Appeals) Dehradun dt. 31.10.2013 for the Assessment Year 2010-11 on the following grounds :-
1. “The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating the fact that manufacturing activities upto such extent cannot be genuinely carried out with the help of such in inadequate manpower employed by the assessee in comparison to the declared results of production.
2. The Ld CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts to ignoring the facts that neither sanctity of books of account were proved nor 1 M.L. Creations manufacturing results were in order to support the genuineness of production.
3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 7,93,41,890/- made by the AO, on account of manufacturing activities which was not found actually carried out.
The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in allowing the claim of deduction u/s 80IC of the I.T. Act, 1961 against the profit occurred on currency exchange holding it a merge amount.
That the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be set aside and that of the AO restored.”
All the grounds of appeal are related to disallowance of assesee’s claim u/s 80IC of I.T. Act, amounting to Rs. 7,93,41,890/- made by the AO vide asstt. order dated 29.3.2013. As the grounds of appeal inter related all the grounds are taken up together for the sake of convenience.
Assessment order dated 29.3.2013 was passed by Ld. AO u/s 143(3) of I.T. Act. In the course of hearing the assessee was represented by Ld. AR who drew our attention to the fact that the issue is covered by decision of ITAT in the assessee’s own case for asstt. year 2009-10 vide order dated 11.11.2014 in by ITAT ‘E’ Bench New Delhi. Ld. DR was unable to distinguish the facts of this asstt. year (2010-11) from the facts of asstt. year 2009-10 in which ITAT has already taken a view in favour of the assessee. Ld. AR of the assesee also drew our attention to the fact that deduction u/s 80IC of I.T. Act has been allowed by the AO in 2
M.L. Creations subsequent assessment year 2011-12. Though Ld. DR supported the order of the Ld. AO, he was not able to point any infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A). As the issue regarding allowability of deduction u/s 80IC of I.T. Act is covered by the order of ITAT in assessee’s own case for asstt. year 2009- 10 we, respectfully following the precedent vide order dated 11.11.2014 of ITAT ‘E’ Bench in for asstt. year 2009-10 uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A).