2018 (9) TMI 1165

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....x (appeal) has erred by not allowing deduction @ 100% of profit derived from manufacturing activities of unit despite of fact that the assessee has undertaken substantial expansion during the financial year 2009-10. Further the Ld. Assessing officer has wrongly disallowed deduction amounting to Rs. 1745580/- u/s 80IC of the Income Tax Act. 2. That the Id Commissioner of Income Tax (appeal) has erred by upholding the addition of Rs. 17758/- on account of interest. 2. The brief facts relating to the issue are that the assessee claimed deduction u/s 80IC of the Act @100% on account of substantial expansion of the Unit. The Assessing officer, however, denied the claim observing that assessee once had availed the deduction u/s 80IC a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ubstantial expansion between 7.1.2003 upto 1.4.2012, should be entitled to benefit of Section 80-IC of the Act, for the period for which they were not entitled to the benefit of deduction under Section 80-IB. (b) Such of those units which have commenced production after 7.1.2003 and carried out substantial expansion prior to 1.4.2012, would also be entitled to benefit of deduction at different rates of percentage stipulated under Section 80-IC. (c) Substantial expansion cannot be confined to one expansion. As long as requirement of Section 80IC(8)(ix) is met, there can be number of multiple substantial expansions. (d) Correspondingly, there can be more than one initial Assessment Years. (e) Within the win....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....al expansion within the definition of the Section, (b) their entitlement and extent of deduction would be dependent upon interpretation of the relevant provisions." We, therefore, do not find any justification at this stage to give the Assessing officer a second innings to re-examine undisputed facts. 6. In view of the above discussion, the impugned order of the CIT(A) relating to ground No.1 is set aside and the Assessing officer is directed to grant to the assessee deduction at the rate of hundred percent of its eligible profits, as per the ruling of the jurisdictional High Court in this regard in the case of 'M/s Stovekraft India vs. Commissioner of Income Tax' (supra). 7. So far as ground No.2 is concerned, the Ld. Counsel for ....