2010 (12) TMI 696

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....bsp; ITA No.1231/Hyd/2010: Assessment Year 2005-06   2. Effective grounds of the Revenue in this appeal read as follows-   "(i) The Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals)-IV, Hyderabad has erred both on facts and in law.   (ii) The CIT(A) has erred in holding that there is no justification in denial of deduction u/s. 80-IB only on the ground that the audit report in form No.10CCB has not been enclosed with the return of income while furnishing of form No.10CCB is mandatory for claiming deduction u/s. 80-IB.   (iii) The decisions in the cases of Jagdish Ram Kishan Chand (304 ITR 450(HP); Panama Chemical Works (245 ITR 684)(MP); Gupta Fabs (274 ITR 620(P and H); Valli Cotton Traders Private Ltd. (288 ITR 400(Ma....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....esent case has filed the audit report in Form 10CCB during the course of re-assessment proceedings, The issue that arises for consideration is whether the Assessing Officer was justified in disallowing the assessee's claim for deduction under S.80IB on the ground that the audit report in Form 10CCB was not filed alongwith the return of income; or whether the CIT(A) was correct in proceeding on the basis of Form 10CCb filed during the course of re-assessment proceedings and directing the Assessing Officer to allow the claim of the assessee for deduction under S.80IB of the Act. It is settled position of law, as consistently held by various Benches of this Tribunal and as held in various decisions referred to by the CIT(A) in the impugned ord....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... find no justification to interfere with the order of the CIT(A). We accordingly uphold the same and reject the grounds of the Revenue in this appeal.   ITA No.1199/Hyd/2010: Assessment Year 2007-08   6. Effective grounds of the Revenue in this appeal read as follows-   "1. The order of the CIT(A) is erroneous both on the facts and circumstances of the case.   2. The CIT(A) has erred in directing the Assessing Officer to grant deduction of RS.34,16,740 u/s. 80IB(3)(ii).   3. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Unit II is a distinct entity as per the provisions of Income tax Rule 18 BBB and the Assessing Officer has rightly disallowed the assessee's claim after gathering all relevant facts." &nbsp....