TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (1) TMI 1846
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....A) has erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee on the issue of disallowance of claim of deduction 801A/SOIB of Rs. 3S,74,04,947/- . 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee on the issue of addition of Rs. 3,72,29,219/- on account of excise duty claim on exports. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee on the issue of disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 2,93,173/- on computer accessories and UPS. 3. Apropos ground No. 1 is regarding claim of deduction u/s 80IA/80IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein after 'the Act') of Rs. 38,74,04,947/-. 4. Brief facts of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for the subsequent years. Therefore even if the investment in plant and machinery exceeds Rs. 1,00,00,0001-, (which in the present y.ear is Rs. 52,47,65,905/-) the appellant would be entitled to the 80IA deduction. As per the facts mentioned in the Assessing Officer's order in the initial year of deduction i.e.1997-98, that investment in the plant and machinery by the appellant was more than the limit of Rs. 60 lacs for a small scale industrial undertaking. Therefore though the company was registered as SSI on 24.02.1997 the very same registration certificate was cancelled by the District Centre, Hoshiarpur on 12.11.1999. Therefore, even AY 1997-98, the appellant was not held to be a small scale industrial undertaking by the c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....72,29,219/- representing excise duty on exports made during the year. 9. The ld CIT(A) has deleted the addition following the order of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee's own case for Assessment Year 2005-06 by concluding as under:- "I have considered the submission of the appellant, copy of the notification filed, from page 65 to 71 of the paper book and submission and show cause notice of the excise authorities issued to the appellant filed from page 72 to 81 of the paper book about the rebate claimed in excise duty by the appellant. On consideration of the submissions made by the appellant and on perusal on the paper book from page 65 to 81, it is seen that a part of the above claims was filed in FY 2005-06 of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....can be said to have accrued to him. In facts of the appellant appellant's case while it does become eligible for claim of refund of excise duty consequent to exports but In terms of the notification there are formalities and procedures to be fulfilled and till that time the concerned authority does not approve the claim, It cannot be said that right to receive the refund has vested in it. Reliance is also placed on the decision of Delhi ITAT in the case of Indian Aluminium Cables Ltd. 13 ITD 907 and the decision of ITAT in case of Pearl Polymers P. Ltd. 16 ITD 599. In the appellant's own case for Assessment Year 2005-06 the Hon'ble ITAT vide ITA No.5817/Del/2010 has held that export benefits are subject to certain procedural requirement....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(supra) and E.D. Sassoon and Co. Ltd. (supra). We see no infirmity in the order of ld. CIT (Appeals), which is upheld. This ground of revenue is dismissed? The drawback does not immediately accrue on export. Drawback is payable post actual export. It requires submission of an application, completion and compliance with formalities and acceptance. After exports are affected, for claiming drawback the assessee has to file application within the prescribed time before the authorities in terms of various rules and regulations. The said Rules/regulations stipulate conditions when drawback is payable or not payable. Application claiming drawback is merely a claim. The amount claimed has to be verified, quantified and determined by the au....