2021 (7) TMI 690

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... return of income for A.Y. 2003-04 on 27.11.2003, declaring total income of Rs. 1,14,29,476/- under the normal provisions of Income Tax Act but however, paid tax on deemed income of Rs. 10,63,49,082/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and thereafter, assessment was framed under section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 29.03.2006 and the total income was determined at Rs. 1,14,29,476/- under the normal provisions and income was computed under section 115JB of the Act at Rs. 13,53,28,238/-. Thereafter, a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 10.03.2010 and in response to which assessee vide letter dated 12.04.2010 submitted that the original return of income filed by the assessee on 27.11.2003 declaring total income at Rs. 1,14,29,476/-....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Assessee has also made a request under Rule 27 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 whereby it supports the order of CIT(A). Before us, at the outset, Learned AR submitted that if the appeal of Revenue is dismissed, then the grounds raised by the assessee would be rendered academic and would therefore not require any adjudication. We first proceed with the appeal of Revenue. 6. Ground No.1 is with respect to deleting the disallowance of claim u/s 80IA/80IB of the Act of Rs. 4,32,65,725/-. 7. Assessee had 10 units spread over the state of Jammu & Kashmir, Rajasthan & Gujarat and 5 units were eligible for deduction u/s 80IA/IB of the Act. During the year under consideration, profit u/s 80IA/IB of the Act was derived only fro....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y the Ld AO in favour of the Revenue. But Sec.80IA(5) does not permits such type of computation as done/intended in her order dated 01/11/10 by the Ld AO. As the factual issue has been religiously followed by the appellant I have no hesitation to accept the view given by the appellant and the Revenue stands in making disallowance of Rs. 4,32,65,725/- is rejected. The appellant has computed the deduction at Rs. 8,68,25,938/- but it has restricted the amount of Rs. 4,31,65,725/-. This is the proper approach as per the provision of the law and hence the stand of the appellant is sustained and that of the Revenue is rejected." 8. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), Revenue is now before us. 9. Before us, Learned DR supported the order of AO. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....,97,34,475/- was distributed to its share holder. Further all these facts were brought to the notice of the Ld AO by the appellant during 147 proceeding, so much so a certificate was also filed alongwith the return for the relevant period. Here also the Ld AO has not discussed anything in her order but not allowed the claim u/s 80M. It was stated before me that the appellant thought it was a mistake on part of the Ld AO and on 154 petition dated 25/12/10 was filed on 05/01/11 but to no avail. The appellant stated before me that neither the facts were confronted to the appellant nor the matter was discussed in her order. I find full justification in such submission of the Ld AO of the appellant and hence disallowance u/s 80M is not sustainab....