TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (9) TMI 340
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e relevant Assessment Year 2017-18 vide intimation dated 23.03.2019 u/s. 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter 'the Act'). 2. The only issue in this appeal of assessee is as regards to the order of CIT(A) confirming the action of the A.O i.e., DCIT, Centralized Processing Center, Bengaluru in disallowing the claim of deduction u/s. 80-IA of the Act amounting to Rs. 35,58,840/- and that also while adjudicating the return of income u/s. 143(1) of the Act and without jurisdiction. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacture and export of hosiery garments. The assessee filed its return of income for the A.Y 2017-18 on 31.10.2017. The A.O while processing return of income u/s. 143(1)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntitled to deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. The Appellant relied upon certain judgment as narrated in the reply, the fact of each case are different than the Facts of the Appellant's case as discussed above. Even filing of audit report for deduction u/s 80IA of the IT Act along with return of income is mandatory and not directory and in case of failure to file the audit report along with the return of income, the assessee is not entitled to deduction. This view is found support from the judgment of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jyoti Jain (2009) 17 DTR (Raj) 286. In the circumstances, I don't intend to interfere in the decision taken by the AO which is as per provisions of the Act. Accordingly, Ground No,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reme Court in the case of CIT v. G.M. Knitting Industries (P.) Ltd. [2015] 376 ITR 456 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that even though necessary certificate in Form No.10CCB has to be filed along with the return of income, but even if the same was filed before the final order of assessment was made, assessee is entitled to claim deduction u/s. 80IB of the Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court affirmed the order of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. AKS Alloys (P.) Ltd. [2012] 18 taxmann.com 25 (Mad.) . The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has also filed a copy of Hon'ble Madras High Court decision in the case of CIT v. AKS Alloys (P.) Ltd., supra, wherein the same issue was considered and held as under: "5. In so far as it....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in CIT v. Shivanand Electronics [1994] 209 ITR 63 / 75 Taxman 93 (Bom.), apart from Gujarat High Court in Zenith Processing Mills v. CIT [1996] 219 ITR 721 (Guj.) and Punjab and Haryana High Court in CIT v. Mahalaxmi Rice Factory [2007] 294 ITR 631/ 163 Taxman 565 (Punj. & Har). 7. The Calcutta High Court in the case in the CIT v. Berger Paints (India) Ltd. [2002] 254 ITR 503/[2Q031 126 Taxman 435 (Cal.) has also concurred with the said view which was followed by the Tribunal in this case. 8. Mr. T. Ravikumar, the learned counsel for the appellant is not able to produce any other judgement contrary to the above said views consistently taken. 9. In the light of the above, by virtue of hierarchy of judgements which are against the Reven....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssee is concerned, j Section 10B (8) is an exemption provision which cannot be compared with claiming an additional depreciation under section 32(1) (ii-a) of the Act. As per the settled position of law, an assessee claiming exemption has to strictly and literally comply with the exemption provisions. Therefore, the said decision shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand, while considering the exemption provisions. Even otherwise, Chapter III and Chapter VIA of the Act operate in different realms and principles of Chapter III, which deals with "incomes which do not form a part of total income", cannot be equated with mechanism provided for deductions in Chapter VIA, which deals with "deductions to made in computing total inco....