TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (3) TMI 1738
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....80IC as against the claim of deduction of Rs. 14,54,21,467/- as the Ld. CIT(A) has completely disregarded the observations of the A.O. that by diverting more profits towards non exempt units, the assessee had diverted profits towards exempt units and had not examined the issue while coming to conclusion. " 2. The facts of the case are that assessee-firm is dealing in manufacturing of precision turned parts at Rohtak and Branches at Gurgaon, Chakan, Barotiwala, Pantnagar and Haridwar and Units at Barotiwala, Pantnagar, Nalagarh and Haridwar are located in exempted zones. Bulk of purchases are made at Head office at Rohtak and after doing certain operations, the semi-finished items are sent to other units for further operations as all the o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... crores. The appeal of assessee has been allowed. 4. The Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that in A.Y. 2010-2011, the Department on the same ground filed the appeal before the Tribunal in ITA.No.2369/Del./2014 which have been dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 9th August, 2016. The findings of the Tribunal in paras 7.1 to 9 are reproduced as under : "7.1 After going through the findings of the Ld. CIT(A), as aforesaid, we are of the view that the AO has reduced the deduction admissible u/s. 80 IC of the IT Act by Rs. 10,04,37,557/- on the ground that out of the 3 exempted and 3 non-exempted units owned by the assessee in different states the maximum N.P. rate for a taxable unit was 6.90% while that for an exempted unit ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... claimed as deduction u/s 80-IC was wrong. We find considerable cogency in the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) that there is no ground for disallowing claim for job work expenses for the eligibility u/s 80-IC as the same is allowable as per the decision of his Predecessor in appeal no. 467 /RTK/2011-12 for the AY 2009-10. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition 10,04,37,872/-. We also note that the addition in dispute relevant to preceding assessment year 2009-10, the Tribunal also upheld the deletion of addition by holding as under, (as mentioned at page no. 4 of the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A)). "The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A), it is seen, Ld. CIT(A) has followed the principle of consistency in deleting....