TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (8) TMI 1993
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in holding that the ground raised by the appellant regarding lack of opportunity of hearing before the AO is academic. 3. The Ld.CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,51,06,508/- on account of disallowance of claim u/s.80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the reason that the conditions of the notification have not been complied with. 4. The appellant craves leave to add or amend, modify or delete any of the grounds of appeal, if deemed necessary." From the above, it is evident that the core issue for adjudication relates to the allowability of claim of deduction u/s.80IA(4) of the Act in respect of the eligible profits earned by the assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aim in the A.Y. 2009-10, the same was allowed. However, in the A.Yrs. 2010-11 and 2011-12, the allowability of the claim was again scrutinized by the AO and the same was disallowed. The date of completion of the eligible undertaking and approval from the competent authority were the reasons for the denial. Contents of Para No. 8 of the assessment order are relevant. It is the claim of the AO that only 7 units out of the 14 units were completed, as per the completion certificate issued by the PMC dated 29-03-2006. The CIT(A) confirmed the said decision of the AO. Aggrieved with the same, the assessee is in appeal for both the years with identical issues arising from the grounds extracted above. 4. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thin the meaning of the ratio of the judgment in the case of CIT Vs. Paul Brothers (supra). Under such circumstances, the claim of the assessee need not be disturbed considering the fact that there are no changes on the facts in the subsequent assessment years, i.e. A.Yrs. 2010-11 and 2011-12. For this proposition, Ld. Counsel brought our attention to various decisions including the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Paul Brothers reported in 216 ITR 548. 5. On the other hand, Ld. DR for the Revenue relied heavily on the Supreme Court judgment in the case of DCIT Vs. M/s. Ace Multi Axes Systems Ltd. in Civil Appeal No.20854/2017 and others, dated 05-12-2017 (reported in 88 taxmann.com. 69 (SC). Ld. DR submitted ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Paul Brothers (supra) stands applicable to the facts of the present case legally. 7. Further, for commenting our view on the issue, we also perused the judgment in the case of CIT Vs. Western Outdoor Interactive Pvt. Ltd. reported in 349 ITR 309 (Bom.) wherein the Hon'ble High Court held as under: "6) We have considered the submissions. We find that the submissions made by Mr. Pardiwalla on the basis of the decision of this Court in the matter of Paul Brothers (supra) and Director of Information Pvt. Ltd. (supra) merits acceptance. Therefore, in this case, it is not necessary for us to decide whether SEEPZ unit was set up/formed by splitting up of the first unit. In bo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f rival sides and have perused the orders of the authorities below. The first ground raised in appeal by assessee is with respect to assessee's eligibility for claiming deduction u/s. 10A of the Act. It is an undisputed fact that the assessee company was incorporated in the year 1991. The documents on record show that the assessee was granted STPI approval on 30-03-2000. Before grant of approval the assessee could not have claimed deduction u/s. 10A of the Act. The ld. AR has stated at the Bar that first year for claiming deduction u/s. 10A was assessment year 2001-02. Though the ld. AR could not place on record assessee's return of income in assessment year 2001-02 and the assessment order for the said assessment year, however, the....