TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (3) TMI 1317
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gs, the AO has stated as under in the assessment order:- "The following reasons were recorded before issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act:- "It has come to notice that under section 36(i)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 interest paid on borrowed fund for acquiring of capital assets is not deductible till the date of their utilization in business but the assesses has claimed the interest on this amount in its profit and loss account. As per Balance Sheet, status of borrowed funds was as under: Capital work in progress in IMT Gurgaon unit Rs.2,17,66,774/- Secured and unsecured loans Rs.12,48,72,290/- Loan (Inter units) from Faridabad unit in IMF unit Rs.1,72,97,700/- The assessee in IMT units claimed deduction of interest of Rs. 81,85,546/- and in Faridabad unit from which above funds were transferred to IMT Gurgaon of Rs. 7,41,789/-. Thus, total interest for IMT unit was paid of Rs. 89,27,335/- for which deduction has been claimed and allowed. Since 15. 31% funds were utilized in capital work in progress which was not been put into use in business upto 31.03.2005. Therefore, 15.31% of total interest paid by this unit which worked to Rs. 13,66,775/- needed to be dis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by Revenue Audit. The Ld.AR also contended that the dispute is covered in faovur of assessee by the decisions of the Co-ordinate Benches of ITAT, Delhi in the following cases:- (i) Landbase India Ltd. vs DCIT [2015] 43 ITR (Trib) 172 (ITAT [Del]); (ii) Uttaranchal Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd. vs ACIT [2016] 47 ITR (Trib) 198 (ITAT[Del]); (iii) Upkar International P.Ltd. vs DCIT [2016] 49 ITR (Trib) 551 (ITAT [Del]); and (iv) Magppie Exports vs DCIT [2016] 49 ITR (Trib) 47 (ITAT [Del]). (B.3). For ease of reference, the written submissions filed by the assessee are reproduced as under:- Hence it is requested as follows:- 1. "CIT(A) Faridabad is erred in concluding that notice u/s 148 is valid and reassessment proceedings are validly initiated. The appellant prays that notice issued u/s 148 is bad in law. The conditions stipulated u/s 147 is not satisfied. Thus it may be concluded that neither the reopening not the additions made by the AO was valid and therefore, reopening should be quashed and additions should be deleted. 2. The assessee is very much eligible as per law to claim deduction u/s 80IB and which was allowed in original assessment, after due application on mind, a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er compliance. JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS WRT TO PARA 3B ABOVE. Judgement Number Judgement Name 1. Asst. CIT v. ICICI Securities Primary Dealership Ltd. [2012] 348 ITR 299 (SC). 2. Deputy CIT v. Simplex Concrete Piles (I) Ltd. [2013] 358 ITR 129 (SC). 3. Voltas Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2012] 349 ITR 656 (Bom). 4. Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [2013] 351 ITR 23 (Delhi). 5. Atomstroyexport v. Deputy DIT (I.T.) [2014] 363 ITR 612 (Bom). 6. Sayaji Hotels Ltd. v. ITO [2011] 339 ITR 498 (Guj). 7. Bhor Industries Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2004] 267 ITR 161 (Bom). 17. Gemini Leather Stores v. ITO [1975] 100 ITR 1 (SC). 28. HARYANA ACRYLIC MANUFACTURING CO. vs. CIT AND ANOTHER [2009] 308 ITR 38 (Del) 29. WEL INTERTRADE P. LTD. AND ANOTHER vs. ITO [2009] 308 ITR 22 (Del) 30. NESTLE INDIA LTD. vs.DCIT [2016] 384 ITR 334 (Del) 31. CIT (LTU) vs. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD. [2016] 382 ITR 574 (Bom) 32. MUNJALSHOWA LTD. vs.DCIT AND ANOTHER [2016] 382 ITR 555 (Del) 33. NIRMAL BANG SECURITIES PVT. LTD. vs.ACIT AND OTHERS [2016] 382 ITR 93 (Bom) 34 . SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD.(Earlier known as Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd.) us.DCIT A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....IED STRIPS LTD. vs. ACIT [2016] 384 ITR 424 (Del) 34 SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD.(Earlier known as Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd.) vs. DCIT AND ANOTHER[2016] 381 ITR 387 (Del) 36 CIT vs.ARVIND REMEDIES LTD. [2015] 378 ITR 547 (Mad) 37 CONSULTING ENGINEERING SERVICES (INDIA) P. LTD. vs.DCIT [2015] 378 ITR 318 (Del) 42 RANBAXY LABORATORIES LTD Vs DCIT [2013] 351 ITR 23 (Del) (B.4). The Ld.DR appearing on behalf of the Revenue, supported the orders of the AO and the CIT(A) and relied upon their orders. (C). We have heard both the sides patiently. We have also considered all materials on record. The central issue in dispute is whether initiation of re-assessment proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 148 of the Act vide aforesaid notice dated 29.03.2012 u/s 148 of the Act is valid in law. We find that the re-assessment proceedings have been initiated vide notice issued on 29.03.2012 u/s 148 of the Act. This is after the expiry of 4 years from the end of relevant assessment year. On perusal of Proviso to section 147 of the Act, it is obvious that reassessment proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s 148 of the Act cannot be initiated after expiry of 4 years from the end of the rele....