TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (11) TMI 719
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....18.18 lacs to the CPP units for allowing deduction u/s 80-IA. This is as per ground NO.2 of the assessee's appeal. 4. It was submitted by the Ld. A.R. that this issue is covered by the tribunal order in the assessee's own case for the assessment year 2004-05, copy of which is available on pages 43-57 of the paper book and the relevant page is page no.48 of the paper book para 16. Ld. D.R. of the revenue made the same submissions. 5. We have considered the rival submissions, perused the material on record and have gone through the orders of authorities below and the tribunal decision cited by the Ld. A.R. We find that as per para 16 of this tribunal order in assessee's own case for the assessment year 2004-05, this issue has been decided by the Tribunal against the assessee. For the sake of ready reference, we reproduce para 16 from the Tribunal order in assessee's own case of the assessment year 2004-05 which is available at page 48-49 of the paper book: "16. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record and have gone through the orders of the authorities below. After considering the nature of expenses comprised in common Head-quarter expenses of Rs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on this aspect. 8. The 3rd issue is regarding allocation of general expenses of Rs. 168.99 lacs and administrative expenses of Rs. 49.49 lacs for computation of deduction u/s 80-IB of the Income tax Act, 1961. This issue is raised as per ground No.4 of the assessee's appeal. It was agreed by both the sides that's this issue is covered against the assessee by the Tribunal decision in the assessee's own case for the assessment year 2004-05 and the relevant para of the Tribunal order is para 21 on page 50 of the paper book. For the sake of ready reference, we reproduce para 21 of the tribunal order from page 50-51 of the paper book: "21. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that we have to decide only regarding allocation of salary expenses and administrative/general expenses to two units i.e. Daman and Baddi units for the purpose of computation of deduction allowable u/s. 80IB. The submission of the assessee is this that since direct expenses has been directly allocated to these two units, no part of common expenses should be further allocated. We do not find any merit in this conte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stricting the deduction. In the present case, the A.O. has allocated the loss of Daman unit on proportionate basis towards profit of CPP unit and Baddi Unit which are eligible for deduction u/s 80-IA and 80-IB respectively. In the present case, even the Daman unit is also eligible for deduction u/s 80-IB whereas in the case of CIT Vs Dewan Kraft Systems P. Ltd. (supra), only Kalamb unit was eligible for deduction u/s 80-IA and other units i.e. Delhi and NOIDA units were not eligible for deduction u/s 80-IA or 80-IB. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in that case had reproduced provisions of Sub-section (7) of Section 80-IA of the Act and for the sake of ready reference, the same is reproduced here also: "(7) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act, the profits and gains of an eligible business to which the provisions of sub-section (1) apply shall, for the purposes of determining the quantum of deduction under sub-section (5) for the assessment year immediately succeeding the initial assessment year or any subsequent assessment year, be computed as if such eligible business were the only source of income of the assessee during the previous year relevant to the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d No.1 of the revenue's appeal. It was submitted by the Ld. A.R. that although this issue has been decided by the tribunal against the assessee in assessment year 2004-05 as per para 16 on page 40 of the paper book but reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court rendered in the case of Dewan Kraft System P. Ltd (supra). Ld. D.R. of the revenue supported the assessment order. 16. We have considered the rival submissions, perused the material on record and have gone through the orders of authorities below and the judgement of Hon'ble Delhi High Court cited by the Ld. A.R. We find that this judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court cited by the Ld. A.R. is not applicable in the present case because the facts are different and this has been discussed by us while deciding the issue No.4 regarding ground No.5 of the assessee's appeal. Hence, this judgment Hon'ble Delhi High Court is of no help to the assessee in the present case. In assessment year 2004-05, this issue has been decided by the Tribunal against the assessee as per para 16 of the tribunal order which is reproduced below: "16. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record and have....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rd and have gone through the orders of authorities below. We find that this issue has been decided by the Ld. CIT(A) a per para 5.2 of his order which is reproduced below: "I find that similar issue was involved in earlier years and the stand of the A.O. was confirmed. Following the stand taken in earlier years, I confirm the allocation made by the A.O. However, as regards alternative contention that to the extent of allocation of salary already made by the appellant, the same should be reduced to avoid double disallowance, I agree with the appellant and direct the A.O. to grant relief accordingly. The other alternative contention that only salary of plastic division should be allocated among Daman and Baddi units in the ratio of sales of these units is found to be reasonable and the same is accepted, the A.O. is directed to grant relief accordingly." 22. From the above para, we find that the Ld. CIT(A) has in principle approved the stand of the A.O. but he has given direction to the A.O. that to the extent of allocation of salary already allocated by the assessee, the same should be reduced to avoid double disallowance. He has not given finding as to what extent, there is double....