TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (6) TMI 111
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ter referred to as 'the IT Act') vide a notice dated 26.11.2009. 2. The facts of the case are that originally the petitioner had filed returns on 01.11.2004 and intimation assessment was completed under Section 143(1) of the IT Act on 27.06.2005 accepting the returns filed by the petitioner. In the returns filed by the petitioner, the petitioner had claimed a deduction for a sum of Rs. 22,81,74,356/- under Section 80HHC of the IT Act and exemption on the Export Oriented Unit (EOU) for a sum of Rs. 84,40,581/- under Section 10B of the IT Act. The returns which was accepted by the Income Tax Officer under Section 143(1) of the IT Act was sought to be rectified under Section 154 of the IT Act, 1961. 3. On 19.12.2005 an order w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gs under Section 154 of the IT Act for determining the book-profit under Section 115 J of the IT Act. While holding so, the appeal filed by the petitioner came to be allowed. 5. During the pendency of the said appeal before the Income Tax Tribunal, a Scrutiny Assessment Order dated 22.12.2006 came to be passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, wherein, while computing the book-profit, the deduction claimed by the petitioner under Section 80HHC of the IT Act was denied. As far as the exemption under Section 10B of the IT Act was concerned, the petitioner declared a sum of Rs. 84,40,581/- but squared off the same by bringing forward a loss for an equal amount and therefore stated tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a Laboratories, deduction u/s 80HHCC in this case cannot be allowed, both for section 115JB and normal provisions of the Act, which is to the extent of Rs. 23 crores. Under the above circumstances, I have reason to believe that income of more than Rupees Twenty Three Crores chargeable to tax in this case for Asst.Year 2004- 05 has escaped assessment, consequent to the order of ITAT. I am satisfied that this is a fit case for issue of notice u/s 148 read with section 149(i) (b) so as to reassess the income chargeable to tax that has escaped assessment..." 7. It is in the background of the above, the impugned communication dated 01.12.2010, bearing Ref.No.AAACO 0402B/2010-11/82 has been issued by the respondent/Deputy Commissioner....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nst the order of the Tribunal, the Income Tax Department had also filed statutory appeal before this Court under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961 in T.C.A. No. 519 of 2014 which was withdrawn by the Income Tax Department on 12.10.2018 though on the ground of monitory policy in terms of Circular No.3/2018 dated 11.07.2018. 11. In this connection a reference was made on the following cases:- (i) Seimens Information System Ltd., Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, [2008] 168 Taxman 209 (Bombay). (ii) Commissioner of Income-tax Vs Gupta Abhushan (P.) Ltd., [2009] 178 Taxman 473 (Delhi) (iii) Asteriods Trading and Investments (P.) Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, [2009] 308 ITR 190 (Bombay) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....HC is decided, the impugned order itself has stated that the issue will be decided in the light of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ajanta Pharma Ltd., Vs Commissioner of Income-tax, [2010] 194 Taxman 358 (SC), 327 ITR 305 (SC) rendered on 09.09.2010 and in the case of Ipca Laboratary Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 266 ITR 521. 14. It is therefore submitted that the reopening of the assessment qua proposed denial of deduction/exemption under Section 10B alone survives even if the submission of the petitioner is to be accepted. She submits that speaking order passed by the respondents is well considered and all the defences that are available to the petitioner should be raised and therefore that the petitioner should participate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ome to show higher profit from EOU operation to claim deduction under Section 10B of the IT Act, 1961, the Income Tax Department would be justified in reopening the assessment under Section 148 of the IT Act, 1961, for the purpose of the proviso to Section 147 of the IT Act, 1961. 19. The facts also indicate that an order was passed for the assessment year 2005-2006 as is evident from the preamble to be final order dated 30.08.2013 of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has noted that the submission of the Respondent that this was not the first time the petitioner had claimed deduction under Section 10B of the IT Act, 1961. It appears that for the aforesaid year, CIT(Appeals)-IV vide order dated 21.09.2010, had observed that, "Since transfer cost....