TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (9) TMI 1408
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. 10,28,461/- out of Rs. 17,77,02,892/-. The assessee claimed the deduction u/s 80IC in respect of BT Division, Panel Division and BD Division. The AO reduced the claim out of the BT Division and Panel Division by Rs. 6,50,339/- and Rs. 11,68,840/-. By applying the provision of section 80IA(8) as according to him, the transfer from one unit to another unit should have been done at market value. When the matter went before the Ld. CIT(A), Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the reduction of the deduction u/s 80IC by Rs. 2,34,511/- in respect of BT Division and Rs. 7,93,950/- for Panel Division. Ignoring the fact that the assessee claimed deduction u/s 80IC only for a sum of Rs. 28,405/- for the Panel Division. 4. Ld.AR before us relied on the decision of the Mansarover Builders Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.4193/Del/2012 with reference to section 40A(2), it was held that the obligation is on the AO to determine the market value first. 5. The assessee also relied before us under Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 in which it has been mentioned that reasonable value for inter unit transfer has determined by the Government of India is cost plus 10%. 6. Ld.DR even though contended that the asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the business or profession has computed under the said head will automatically increase. Section 10B(i) allows the deduction on the profits and gains computed under the head income from business of the eligible unit in accordance with the provision of section 30 to 43D of the Income Tax Act. This view has been taken by this Tribunal in the following cases:- (i) Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd. 194 Taxman 192 (Bombay) PB 981-988 (981, 983, 987); (ii) Sahasra Electronics Pvt.Ltd., ITA No.1951/Del/2009-AY 2005-06; and (iii) ACIT vs Jewellery Solutions International Pvt. Ltd. [2009] 28 SOT 405 (ITAT, Mumbai Bench) 10. No contrary decision was brought to our knowledge. We, therefore, direct the AO to allow the deduction u/s 10B in respect of the disallowance made u/s 40A amounting to Rs. 7,92,300/-. Thus, this ground of the assessee is allowed. 11. Now, coming to the ground taken by the Revenue, we noted that in this case, the AO while computing the profit of the eligible unit for deduction u/s 10B allocated the corporate expenses while the assessee was of the view that neither the receipt nor the expense which has not related to the operation of the undertaking, can find place....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the order of the Ld. CIT(A) to restrict the disallowance of Rs. 4,23,507/-. 15. Ground No.4 in assessee's appeal as well as in revenue's appeal related to the reducing and sustenance of the disallowance out of the foreign travel expenses. The facts relating to this ground are that the AO disallowed 20% of Rs. 16,76,438/- claimed by the assessee as foreign travel expenses. When the matter went before the Ld. CIT(A) but Ld. CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to 30% of the expenses against foreign currency and credit cards i.e. to Rs. 11,55,832/-. Both the assessee as well as revenue has come in appeal. 16. We heard the rival submissions and carefully considered the same. We noted that the disallowance was made by the AO and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) partly on the basis of the expenses incurred for personal purposes. It is not denied that the assessee has paid fringe benefit tax on these expenses. Since fringe benefit tax has been paid, therefore, no disallowance can be made on account of the personal expenses. Our aforesaid view is duly supported by the decision of Delhi Bench of this Tribunal in ITA No.805/Del/2013 for AY 2009-10 in the case of Aero Enterprises. No contrary dec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... taking the following ground:- 1. Amendment to Grounds of Appeal 1.1. "The assessee company is aggrieved by an addition on account of leave encashment to the extent of Rs. 1,71,613/- and Rs. 16,54,901/. Rs. 1,71,613/- represents amount disallowed in excess u/s 43B of the Act as per incorrect calculation submitted and Rs. 16,54,901/- has been excess disallowed by virtue of the fact that the impugned amount was not debited to the Profit & Loss Account, but was debited to General Reserve as it was on account of liability for the past years. The assessee company is therefore aggrieved by the incorrect computation of assessable income." 21. In our opinion, the impugned ground taken by the assessee is a legal ground and has to be adjudicated by the Ld. CIT(A) as the assessee can take the legal ground for the first time before the appellate authority in view of the decision of NTPC Ltd. vs CIT 229 ITR 383(SC). Since this ground has not been adjudicated by the Ld.CIT(A), we therefore set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and restore the said issue alongwith additional ground taken by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A)to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with the direction tha....