Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2019 (5) TMI 309

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in ITA No. 1617/Chd/2017, for the assessment year 2014-15, claiming the following substantial questions of law:- (i) Whether an assessee who sets up a new industry of a kind mentioned in sub-section (2) of Section 80IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and starts availing exemption of 100 per cent tax under subsection (3) of Section 80IC of the Act (which is admissible for five years) can start claiming the exemption at the same rate of 100% beyond the period of five years on the grounds that the assessee has now carried out substantial expansion in its manufacture unit? (ii) Whether there can be more than one 'initial assessment year' for availing the deduction u/....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ppeals) [for brevity "the CIT(A)"]. The CIT(A) vide order dated 24.10.2017 (Annexure A-II) dismissed the appeal of the assessee and upheld the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. Still dissatisfied, the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 2.7.2018 (Annexure A-III) allowed the appeal of the assessee in view of the order dated 28.11.2017 passed by the Himachal Pradesh High Court in M/s. Stoverkraft India v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2018) 400 ITR 225 (HP). Hence, the present appeal. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. It was not disputed by the learned counsel for the parties that the issue involved herein is covered by the decision of the Apex Court in Commissioner of I....