2010 (1) TMI 1268

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... V Chavan ORDER R K Gupta:  These are two appeals by the department against the order of the CIT(A) relating to assessment years 2004-05 & 2005-06. 2 Ground no 1 & 2 in both these appeals are against directing the AO to allow deduction u/s 80IB in respect of adhesive unit at Bhimpore, Daman and for Epoxy M-Seal unit at Kadaiya, Daman. 3 The ld counsel of the assessee, at the ou....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lf for AY 1998-99 to 2002-03 whereby deduction u/s 80IB for both the units, mentioned above, were allowed to the assessee. Following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of the assessee for earlier years, we confirm the order of the ld CIT(A) for both these years also as the facts are identical. 5 There is no other ground in appeal for AY 2004-05. 6 There is one more ground in appeal for....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r they failed to understand that section 35D(2)(d) are not applicable on the facts of the present case. It was further submitted as required by the AO the assessee had given a detailed note to the AO explaining why the expenditure should be treated as revenue and not capital. Copy of the same was also filed before the CIT(A). Reliance was placed on the order of the Tribunal in the case of Metro Sh....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sonal view, the ld CIT(A) found that this particular Ad-film may not have a telecasting longevity and hence it should not be treated as a film which has got a enduring benefit unlike some other Ad-films which do have periodic telecasting over a long period of time. The ratio of the decision in the cases of Solara International Ltd and Metro Shoes P Ltd were found in favour of the assessee. 7 Th....