M/S E.G. PHARMACEUTICALS,SOLAN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE, PARWANOO
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim for 100% deduction under Section 80IC for substantial expansion is allowable. The Assessing Officer in a subsequent assessment year had already granted this deduction following the High Court's decision.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed 100% deduction under Section 80IC for substantial expansion after the initial 5 years. The Assessing Officer restricted this deduction to 25% of eligible profits. The assessee's appeal is based on a jurisdictional High Court decision.
What were the issues?
Whether the benefit of substantial expansion under Section 80IC is allowable to an undertaking that existed after the specified date, and if so, at what rate.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DIVISION BENCHES ‘A’, CHANDIGARH
Before: MS. DIVA SINGH & Dr.B.R.R.KUMAR
PER DIVA SINGH, JM
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee assailing the correctness of the order dated 17/07/2017 of CIT(A) Shimla HP pertaining to 2014 – 10 assessment year on the following ground : “The ld. CIT(A) is wrong in disallowing the benefit of substantial expansion u/s 80IC(2) by holding that benefit of substantial expansion is allowable only to the undertaking which were existing as on 07.01.2003.” 2. The Ld. AR inviting attention to the impugned order submitted that the point at issue is fully covered in favour of the assessee by virtue of the decision of the jurisdictional High Court dated 28/11/2017 in the case of M/s Stove Craft India Versus CIT-V and others in ITA 20 to 24/2015. Inviting attention to the assessment order dated 20/12/2017 in 2015-16 assessment year passed under Section 143 (3) in the case of the assessee. Referring to the copy of said order filed, it was submitted that following the decision of the jurisdictional High Court, the Assessing Officer considering the facts of the case, allowed the claim of the assessee @ 100% under section 80IC. Accordingly, it was his submission that on facts and law, the issue was fully covered in favour of the assessee. 3. The Ld. DR considering the assessment order passed by the AO in the scrutiny proceedings did not pose any objection.
ITA 1385/CHD/2017. A.Y. 2014-15 Page 2 of 2
We have heard the submissions and perused the material available on record. It is seen that the assessee in the year under consideration was deriving income from manufacturing of tablets, capsules, syrups etc. from Badi- Pinjore Highway, Tehsil Kasauli, District Solan (HP). After having claimed 100% deduction in the initial 5 years, the assessee thereafter claimed to have carried out substantial expansion and they claimed 100% deduction of eligible profits. The claim was rejected by the Assessing Officer and the deduction was restricted to 25% of the eligible profits under section 80IC. In the light of the decision of the jurisdictional High Court which has been taken into consideration by the Assessing Officer himself in the immediately subsequent assessment year i.e. 2015–16 wherein the AO considering the claim of substantial expansion in 2015-15 which happened to be the 8th year, has granted 100% deduction following the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the order passed u/s 143 (3) dated 20/12/2017. We find that the claim of the assessee is allowable in law and facts. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case the impugned order needs is set aside with the direction to the Assessing Officer to grant necessary relief on facts as already considered in 2015-16 assessment year and allow the claim of the assessee @ of 100% deduction under section 80IC. The said order was pronounced in the Open Court at the time of hearing itself. 4. In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 28th Feb., 2018.
Sd/- Sd/-
( Dr.B.R.KUMAR) (DIVA SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ‘Poonam’ Copy to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5. The DR
Asstt. Registrar ITAT Chandigarh.
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
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026