TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal Upholds Revenue's Appeal on Section 80-IC Deductions, Emphasizes Statutory Compliance</h1> <h3>ACIT, Circle 5 (1), Chandigarh Versus Shri Subhash Chand</h3> ACIT, Circle 5 (1), Chandigarh Versus Shri Subhash Chand - TMI Issues Involved:1. Error in partly allowing the appeal of the assessee.2. Deletion of addition made on account of restricting the claim of deduction under Section 80-IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961.3. Allowing deduction under Section 80-IC at 100% for 10 years.4. Interpretation of the proviso to Section 80-IC regarding deductions for backward states.5. Applicability of deductions under Section 80-IC for states like Himachal Pradesh.6. Multiple 'substantial expansions' under Section 80-IC.7. Interpretation of 'substantial expansion' in Section 80-IC.8. Initial assessment year for claiming deduction under Section 80-IC.9. Request to set aside the order of CIT(A) and restore the Assessing Officer's order.Detailed Analysis:1. Error in Partly Allowing the Appeal of the Assessee:The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in partly allowing the appeal of the assessee without adequately appreciating the facts of the case. The Tribunal reviewed the grounds and found that the CIT(A) had relied on previous judgments, which were not accepted by the department, and SLPs were filed in those cases.2. Deletion of Addition Made on Account of Restricting the Claim of Deduction under Section 80-IC:The Revenue argued that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 85,31,403 by restricting the claim of deduction under Section 80-IC at 25%. The CIT(A) relied on the decision of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of M/s Stovekraft India and the jurisdictional Tribunal in the case of M/s Eurolinks. The Tribunal noted that these judgments had not been accepted by the department on merits.3. Allowing Deduction under Section 80-IC at 100% for 10 Years:The Revenue challenged the CIT(A) for allowing the deduction under Section 80-IC at 100% for 10 years, arguing that it ignored the intent and purpose of the insertion of Section 80-IC, CBDT circulars, and the subsidy scheme issued by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry. The Tribunal emphasized that the deduction should be 100% for the first five years and 25% for the next five years, as per the statutory provisions.4. Interpretation of the Proviso to Section 80-IC Regarding Deductions for Backward States:The Revenue highlighted that the deduction for backward states was available under Section 80-IB(4) before 31.03.2004, and post this date, it was available only under Section 80-IC. The Tribunal agreed that the deduction should be 100% for the first five years and 25% thereafter, as per the proviso.5. Applicability of Deductions under Section 80-IC for States like Himachal Pradesh:The Revenue argued that the CIT(A) ignored the explicit statutory provision of the second proviso, which clarifies that the deduction for states like Himachal Pradesh should be 100% for the first five years and 25% for the next five years. The Tribunal upheld this interpretation.6. Multiple 'Substantial Expansions' under Section 80-IC:The CIT(A) held that undertakings commencing production after 07.01.2013 could carry out multiple 'substantial expansions' prior to 01.04.2012, with each expansion being considered an initial year for deduction purposes. The Tribunal found that this interpretation was not consistent with the provisions of Section 80-IC and the CBDT circulars.7. Interpretation of 'Substantial Expansion' in Section 80-IC:The Revenue argued that the expression 'substantial expansion' in Section 80-IC(2)(a) and 80-IC(2)(b) was applicable to Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand, and the rate of deduction was 100% for the first five years and 25% for the next five years. The Tribunal agreed that allowing a 100% deduction for 10 years would render the meaning of 'substantial expansion' redundant.8. Initial Assessment Year for Claiming Deduction under Section 80-IC:The CIT(A) held that an undertaking carrying out substantial expansion in any assessment year prior to 01.04.2012 could opt for that year as the initial assessment year for claiming deduction under Section 80-IC. The Tribunal found that this interpretation was not aligned with the provisions of Section 80-IC and the CBDT circulars.9. Request to Set Aside the Order of CIT(A) and Restore the Assessing Officer's Order:The Revenue prayed that the order of CIT(A) be set aside and the Assessing Officer's order be restored. The Tribunal, considering the Supreme Court's judgment in CIT Vs Classic Binding Industries, held that the deduction under Section 80-IC should be 100% for the first five years and 25% for the next five years, thereby allowing the Revenue's appeal.Conclusion:The Tribunal concluded that the issue had reached finality in view of the Supreme Court's judgment, and accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue was allowed. The order pronounced in the open Court confirmed the Tribunal's decision to uphold the statutory provisions and the Supreme Court's interpretation of Section 80-IC.
TaxTMI 