TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (11) TMI 497
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....4,53,87,393/- claimed by the assessee u/s 80IC of the IT Act by Rs.1,62,57,270/-. He erred in holding that the net profit of the Kala Amb Unit could not exceed 8.78% despite the fact that the assessee had disclosed a considerable higher net profit. It is further been urged that Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has ignored the order of the ITAT, Delhi for the assessment year 2000-01 and 2001-02 in assessee's own case on the same issue. 3. At the outset of hearing ld. counsel of the assessee submitted that the issue raised is covered by various decisions of the ITAT in assessee's own case as the facts remain the same in this year also. 3.1 Ld. Departmental Representative fairly considered that the issue relating t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ply on the basis that with respect to expenses like AMC and R and D allocation was not made. In our opinion that does not justify the enhancement made by ld.CIT(A). He has simply ignored the decision of Ld.CIT(A) and ITAT in earlier year in which the computation made by the assessee was accepted. The computation of the assessee for the year under consideration also based on same principle. It has been stated by Ld.AR that for A.Ys 2000-01 and 2001-02 vide which the necessary relief was given by the ITAT vide its order dt. 19th October, 2007, the department has not filed any appeal against this issue and thus, the order of the Tribunal has become final. This has so been specifically stated in ground no.5. We do not appreciate the manner in w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....this issue Assessing Officer noted that during the year under consideration as in earlier assessment years the assessee company has two factories where it is manufacturing water coolers, air conditioners, as well as packaged air conditioners. One unit is situated at Faridabad and another unit is situated at Mainthapal Indl. Area, Kala Amb, Nahant Distt. Sirmour (H.P.). Assessee had claimed the profit of Kala Amb @ 100% u/s 80IC of the Act. Assessing Officer further noted that assessee had maintained separate account for Faridabad and Kala Amb Units. Assessing Officer proceeded to analyse the sales of the two units and observed as under:- "i. The material consumption ratio is higher at Faridabad unit by 37.2% (88.85 - 51.65). Simil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee has manipulated the accounts in a manner which will best suit his interest. The allocation of expenses has not been done (manufacturing and other direct expenses) proportionately between the units of the assessee as laid down by the order of the Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi in assessee's own case for the A.Y. 2000-01. iv. In view of the above, the amount of inflated expenses to the tune of Rs.12,78,85,496/- is taken as the suppressed income of the assessee for the year under consideration and addition of the same is made to the taxable income of the assessee." 6. Upon assessee's appeal Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) held as under:- "It is found that the Assessing Officer made a chart on page 7 of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llowed which resulted in increase of over all profit of the company by that amount. On the other hand the profits of Kala Amb unit as well as the deduction claimed u/s 80IC were left untouched. There is no bar in arriving at different conclusion than other assessment years because every assessment is separate proceedings. However, to deviate from the consistency there have to be proper reasons and basis to support the different conclusions. The Assessing Officer has disallowed large part of expenses at Faridabad unit. He has however not pointed out as to which particular expenses he was disallowing. An item of expenditure can be disallowed if, either it is bogus expense (not incurred at all but claimed) or if it was not incurred wholly and ....