TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (3) TMI 128
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 30.09.2014 for assessment year 2009-10. 2. The assessee has preferred the following grounds of appeal :- " 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law. the Hon'ble CIT (Appeals) has erred in disallowing a sum of Rs. 31,90,217/- being other income of Unit I for the purpose of deduction under Section 80IC of the Unit I inter alia because. 1.1 The said sum represented incomes on account of service charges, interests, miscellaneous incomes etc. which were directly derived from the manufacturing activity of Unit I. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law. the Hon'ble CIT (Appeals) has erred in restricting the deduction under Section 801C of the Unit II to Rs. 5,69.61.935/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and on facts in restricting disallowance u/s. 14A to Rs. 3625/- as against Rs. 80635/- disallowed by the Assessing Officer in accordance with Rule 8D of Income Tax Act. " 4. The brief facts of the case is that assessee company is engaged in the business of manufacturing of machinery and equipments for oil well drilling and production activities. It also distributes its products world-wide. For assessment year 2009-10 assessee filed its return of income on 27.09.2010 declaring income of Rs. 17,79,10,920/- under the normal provision and book profit under section 115JB of the Act was declared at Rs. 32.15 crores. 5. The assessee has two units which are eligible for deduction under section 80IC of the Income Tax Act. The learned Assessin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sum of Rs. 2,53,03,898/- for deduction under section 80IC in respect of unit No. II where export incentive of Rs. 2,52,75,146/- and interest on others amounting to Rs. 28,752/- was credited by the assessee and also claimed deduction under section 80IC thereon. According to the learned Assessing Officer such income is not derived from the industrial undertaking. 8. Further the software development expenses of Rs. 18,86,648/- was also disallowed holding it to be capital expenditure. Consequently the assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act was passed on 28.03.2013 at a total income of Rs. 29,69,07,632/- against the returned income of the assessee at Rs. 17,79,10,920/-. 9. The assessee aggrieved, preferred an appeal before the le....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Appeal Nos. 545 to 547 (Del) of 2010. 11. We have heard the rival contentions on this issue. However, as the issue is already decided in favour of the assessee on the same set of facts in earlier years wherein vide para No. 11 the Co-ordinate Bench has allowed the claim of the assessee for deduction under section 80IC of the Act on substantial expansion. 12. The learned Departmental Representative could not show us any reason to deviate from the same. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee's own case for earlier years, we dismiss ground No. 1 of the appeal of the Revenue. 13. Ground No. 2 of the Revenue's appeal and ground No. 1 of the assessee's appeal is with respect to the various o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le of the Assessing Officer following the earlier decision of the Co-ordinate Bench. Therefore, the claim of the assessee is that same may be set aside to the file of the learned Assessing Officer for this year too. 15. The learned Departmental Representative did not express any serious reservation to the above proposition. As the similar income with the same nature of earnings is required to be adjudicated in the earlier years by the Assessing Officer, it would be unfair for us to give our finding on this income as it will negate the earlier orders of the Co-ordinate Bench. So, we also set aside the whole issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer to test each of the income whether they are derived from the industrial undertaking o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sition of the learned CIT (Appeal). In view of this, ground No. 3 of the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 18. We now come to ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee, which was not pressed before us and, therefore, the same is dismissed. 19. Now we come to ground No. 3 of the appeal where the assessee has incurred expenditure of Rs. 18,86,648/- on account of software development expenditure which was held to be capital expenditure by the Assessing Officer holding that it has given a benefit of enduring nature to the assessee. The claim of the assessee is that same is a license fee and, therefore, it cannot be giving any benefit of enduring nature. The learned CIT (Appeals) held that it was for the development of new products and,....