2015 (4) TMI 1259

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....] both dated 07.07.2014. Since the facts and the issue involved therein are identical in nature, hence the same are taken together for disposal by this common order. First we take up assessee's appeal ITA No.5832/M/2014 for AY. 2010-11. ITA No.5832/M/2014 for A.Y.2010-11 The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal: "1. The learned Assessing Officer & the CIT(A) have failed to appreciate that condition as regards unit being small scale is required to be satisfied/examined only in the first/initial year of claiming of deduction u/s. 801B(3). 2. The learned Assessing Officer has erred on facts and in law in denying claim of deduction of Rs. 4,13,58,579/- made u/s. 801B(3). The CIT(A) has erred in confir....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, in the case of "M/s. ACE Multi Axes Systems Ltd. vs. DCIT" (2014) 49 taxmann.com 168 (Karnataka), has on identical facts allowed the claim of the assessee observing as under: "5. In the entire provision, there is no indication that these conditions had to be fulfilled by the assessee all the 10 years. When once the benefit of 10 years, commencing from the initial year, is granted, if the undertaking satisfy all these conditions initially, the undertaking is entitled to . the benefit of 10 consecutive years. The argument that, in the course of 10 years, if the growth of the industry is fast and it acquires machinery and the total value of the machinery exceeds Rs. 1 crore, it ceases to have the said be....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....stments in the business and it results in it's going outside the purview of the definition of a small scale industry, that should not come in the way of its claiming benefit under Sec.80IB for 10 consecutive years, from the initial assessment year.Therefore the approach of the authorities runs counter to the scheme and the intent of the Legislature. Thereby they have denied the legitimate benefit, an incentive granted to the assessee. Both the said orders cannot be sustained. Therefore the substantial question of law is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Hence we pass the following: ORDER 1. The appeal is allowed. The impugned order is hereby set aside. The original order of granting the benefi....