TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (3) TMI 546
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Income tax Act, 1961. 2) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the A.O. 3) It is therefore, prayed that the order of Ld. CIT(A) may be set aside and that of the A.O. be restored." 3. The brief facts regarding this issue are that it is noted by the A.O. in the assessment order that the assessee company has claimed deduction u/s 80-IA to the tune of Rs. 32,68,568/- @ 30% of the profits in the ereturn filed. It is also noted that in the statement of total income filed along with the return, the assessee has claimed deduction u/s 80-I of the Act for the same amount. The A.O. has observed that the assessee company is not sure that whether it is eligible for deduction u/s 80-I or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce has been furnished by the assessee to substantiate this claim. The A.O. rejected the claim of the assessee regarding deduction u/s 80-IB by making these observations. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before ld. CIT(A) who has deleted this disallowance and now, the revenue is in appeal before us. 4. Ld. D.R. supported the assessment order. He submitted that a clear finding is given by the A.O. that no evidence was furnished before him by the assessee in respect of starting of new unit in assessment year 2001- 02 and, therefore, the order of Ld. CIT(A) should be reversed and that of the A.O. should be restored. 5. As against this, Ld. A.R. of the assessee supported the order of Ld. CIT(A). He submitted a copy of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e filed by the assessee for the present year, it is not justified to draw any adverse inference. He further submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has decided this issue in favour of the assessee by following the judgment of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court i.e. Hon'ble Gujarat High Court rendered in the case of Saurashtsra Cement & Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs CIT as reported in 123 ITR 669. He submitted that it was held by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in that case that in respect of income from newly established industrial undertaking, if the assessee's claim for deduction u/s 80-J was allowed in the initial year and the same was not disallowed in that year, the claim of the assessee cannot be disallowed in a subsequent year. He submitted that in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....his form, the auditors have certified that production of foldable lens was started from A.Y. 2001-02. On the strength of Form 10CCB dtd. 3-9-2004 the A.O, has allowed deduction u/s.8OIB to the appellant in the assessment for A.Y. 2004-05, assessed u/s.143(3) of IT. Act dtd. 7-12-2006. Deduction u/s.80IB has again been allowed to the appellant for the A.Y. 2006-07. For the A.Y. 2006- 07 assessment u/s. 143(3) was completed vide assessment order dtd. 24-11-2008 wherein deduction u/s,80IB of Rs. 52,33,100/- was allowed to the appellant. This deduction was in respect of new unit which was commissioned in A.Y, 2001-02. The above facts clearly reveals that disallowance of deduction u/s.80IB has been made on wrong premise. Accordingly, the action ....