TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (8) TMI 877
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India -vs.- CIT reported in 317 ITR 218. Before we proceed further we may observe that the Assessing Officer had withdrawn the entire amount of Rs. 2,43,26,503/- after observing that the assessee claimed deduction under section 80IB for three Branches which were created at later dates since the original business started and funds and assets were distributed and accounted for by the Head office which prepared the consolidated accounts and acted as the sole assessee and none of units was an assessee, and as such the deduction under section 80IB was not allowable. However, the ld. CIT(Appeals) has decided the issue regarding eligibility for deduction under section 80IB in respect of assessee's three units in favour of assessee and, therefore, as far as eligibility of assesee for deduction under section 80IB is concerned, the said issue is not before us. The only issue before us is regarding the disallowances made while computing the deduction under section 80IB of the Act. 3. Ld. counsel for the assessee, at the outset, referred to para 9 of ld. CIT(Appeals)' order and pointed out that the ld. CIT(Appeals) has excluded from the profits eligibl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Central-I, Kolkata dated 02.11.2012 for the assessment year 2009-10. 8. Brief facts of the case are that the assesese filed its return of income showing total income of Rs. 3,63,23,363/-. The assessment was completed at a total income of Rs. 6,19,89,391/- after making the following additions/ disallowances:- Disallowance of loss claimed from SEZ Unit. .....Rs.10,40,736/- Short Term Capital Gain........................................Rs.1,19,66,299/- The ld. CIT(Appeals) confirmed both the additions. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal on the following effective grounds of appeal:- (1) For that the ld. CIT(A) ought to have allowed deductions u/s. 80IB as claimed by the appellant. (2) For that the claim for deduction u/s 80IB included items of income noted under the head 'other income' and that the same formed part of the income derived by the appellant eligible for deduction u/s. 80IB. (3) For that the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming disallowance of Rs. 10,40,736/- being loss suffered by the appellant in its SEZ Unit which was claimed by the appellant adjustable against business income. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../s. Shree Writing Aids Pvt. Ltd., a company which was subsequently amalgamated with the assessee-company had disposed off the office at Mumbai being Unit No. F, Phase No. 32 on the ground floor in the Shree Laxmi Unit, Vijay Industrial Premises Cooperative Society Limited, Phase Nos. 30, 32, 34 & 35, Laxmi Industrial Estate, New Link Road, Ahdheri (West), Mumbai alongwith five shares bearing Distinctive Nos. 621 & 625 under share certificate No. 90 to Mrs. Saroj B. Singhala for a total consideration of Rs. 1,21,00,000/-. The Assessing Officer noticed that on perusal of the depreciation schedule of the Income Tax Act and details of sale of fixed assets as per clause no. 14(d), Annexure-C, it was found that the assessee deducted only Rs. 6,34,845/- instead of Rs. 1,21,00,000/- the sale consideration received on sale of office at Mumbai which was only asset having written down value at the beginning of the year Rs. 1,33,701/- in the block of asset s being building used for other than residential purposes in the depreciation schedule as per Income Tax Act in the accounts of M/s. Shree Writing Aids Pvt. Ltd., the amalgamating company. 15. The plea of assessee was that since the flat ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....missed. Ground No. 1,2,3,11 & 12 is general in nature". 17. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Admittedly in the books of account the assessee's block of assets was Rs. 1,33,701/- which was liquidated by way of sale at a total consideration of Rs. 1,21,00,000/-. Therefore, there was no justification in allocating the sale consideration against various items, i.e. furniture & fixtures, electric installation, air conditioners, office equipments, etc. The ld. CIT(Appeals) has observed that in the sale deed, there is no such bifurcation, though such bifurcation was made at the time of amalgamation. Under such circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the order of ld. CIT(Appeals). Accordingly this ground is dismissed. 18. Now we take up the ITA 2409/KOL/2013. This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Central-I, Kolkata dated 02.11.2012 for the assessment year 2009-10. 19. There is delay only for two days. Ld. D.R. submitted that delay may kindly be condoned and has occurred due to administrative reason. Ld. counsel for the assessee did not seriously oppose it. We ....