TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (6) TMI 548
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ised the assessment order for the main reason that the exemption given by the Assessing Officer to the assessee under section 10B(3) of the Act was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue for the following reasons:- 1. Interest, lease rent and miscellaneous income, amounting in all to Rs. 116,60,631, (relatable to the B unit as a whole) which have been considered for computation u/s 80HH, resulting in the claim of Rs. 72,35,141/-, should be eliminated. 2. The cost of machinery replacement amounting to Rs. 2,70,87,334/- relatable to B unit (as a whole), has to be deducted from the profits for the purpose of computation of deduction u/s 80HH. 3. Interest and lease rental income amounting in all Rs. 71,04,395/- relatable....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inery as revenue expenditure amounting to Rs. 9,46,59,624 by treating it as a capital expenditure and provided appropriate depreciation. (ii) Disallowed Rs. 35,387 being the provident fund remitted after the due date u/s 43B (iii) Disallowed Rs. 8,85,135 being the Bonus paid in excess of the provision claimed u/s 43B (iv) Disallowed Rs. 14,338 u/s 40A(3) (v) Disallowed the claim of Voluntary Retirement Compensation amounting to Rs. 41,30,897 Aggrieved by the above order, your appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals-I), Coimbatore, who in his order dated 20-10-2000 all....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s 154 by determining total income of Rs.1,61,52,480, in consequent to the revision of the assessment for the AY 1996-97 to allow depreciation on the replaced machinery of AY 1993-94 & to allow the deduction u/s 80G. In the said order deduction u/s 80HH & 80HHC amounting to Rs. 35,00,323 & Rs. 24,85,982 respectively have been allowed. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had passed an order dated 23-5-2002 in consequent to the appeal filed by the assessee on 2-4-2001, by allowing the appeal partly in favor of the assessee except the claim of deduction u/s 80HHC before setting off losses. Here it is relevant to note that, the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) directed the Assessing Officer to allow the depreciation pertaining to the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....1,80,62,301 after allowing deduction u/s 80HH and 80HHC, Rs. 72,35,141 and Rs. 59,68618 respectively and income u/s 115JA at Rs. 1,94,64,930. The Assessing Officer had issued notice u/s 148 on 10-3-2004 to initiate reassessment proceedings and passed an order dated 27-12-2004 u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, by reducing the excess depreciation granted on account of adopting higher WDV and deducting 90% of the other income from the business profits while computing deduction u/s 80HHC and thereby determined the total income as per normal provision at Rs. 1,86,31,750 after allowing deduction u/s 80HH & 80HHC, Rs. 72,35,141 & Rs. 55,90,900 respectively and assessed tax u/s 115JA by determining income at Rs. 1,95,78,340. The I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8-2005 and considered the income of Rs. 2,11,41,710 as per the order dated 10-8-2005 for the purpose of computation of tax. Then the assessee had filed a petition to delete the interest charged u/s 234D in this order as there was no refund granted u/s 143(1) dated 23-10-1998. 5. In the light of the above details, it is to be seen that the Commissioner of Income tax has revised the assessment order passed on 4-5-2006. It is to be seen that the matters pointed out by the Commissioner of Income-tax for the purpose of revising the assessment order have already reached finality in the order dated 29-3-2000 passed under section 143(3) and in the order passed to give effect to the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on 2-7-2002. T....