TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the assessment order dated 30.12.2009 was barred by limitation under section 153. (ii) Whether the assessee was entitled to deduction under section 80IB(11). (iii) Whether the assessee was entitled to deduction under section 80IB(11A). (iv) Whether the assessing officer lacked jurisdiction in AY 2008-09.
Issue (i): Whether the assessment order dated 30.12.2009 was barred by limitation under section 153.
Analysis: The Tribunal noted the assessment order was made on 30.12.2009 and received by the assessee on 2.1.2010. Relying on authority concerning when an order is regarded as made/issued (order must be beyond control of the authority within prescribed period), and in absence of material to show the order was not made on 30.12.2009, the Tribunal held the statutory period was complied with.
Conclusion: The plea of limitation is rejected; the assessment order dated 30.12.2009 is within limitation (against the assessee).
Issue (ii): Whether the assessee was entitled to deduction under section 80IB(11).
Analysis: The Tribunal observed earlier assessment years had allowed deduction u/s 80IB(11). Applying the rule of consistency and following the Tribunal's earlier order in the assessee's own case, and finding no distinguishing features, the Tribunal set aside the revenue orders and directed the AO to allow deduction as per the earlier Tribunal directions; the matter was remitted for compliance with those directions.
Conclusion: Deduction under section 80IB(11) is allowed and the matter is remitted to the AO to grant relief consistent with the Tribunal's earlier order (in favour of the assessee, partly allowed for statistical purposes).
Issue (iii): Whether the assessee was entitled to deduction under section 80IB(11A).
Analysis: The Tribunal found the assessee produced documentary evidence but the record did not show the AO had examined all conditions of section 80IB(11A) or the submitted evidence. In the interests of justice the Tribunal set aside the orders and remitted the matter to the AO to decide afresh after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity and considering authorities cited.
Conclusion: The issue under section 80IB(11A) is remitted to the AO for fresh adjudication after opportunity to the assessee (partly allowed for statistical purposes).
Issue (iv): Whether the assessing officer lacked jurisdiction in AY 2008-09.
Analysis: The Tribunal accepted the CIT(A)'s finding that jurisdiction was properly assigned by income tax authorities to the Range and found no contrary material from the assessee to rebut that finding.
Conclusion: The jurisdictional objection is rejected (against the assessee).
Final Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the assessment as within limitation and rejected the jurisdictional objection; it allowed the assessee's claim under section 80IB(11) by directing the AO to follow the earlier Tribunal order and remitted the section 80IB(11A) issue to the AO for fresh decision after affording opportunity; the appeals are thus partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Ratio Decidendi: An assessment order is to be treated as made within the statutory period when it is issued/made so as to be beyond the control of the authority within the prescribed period; where earlier consistent Tribunal decisions exist and no distinguishing features are shown, the rule of consistency requires the revenue authorities to follow those decisions; where material and conditions for statutory deductions have not been fully examined, the proper course is remand for fresh adjudication with opportunity to the assessee.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
