2019 (11) TMI 1768

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Addl.CIT For the Appellant : Smt Suman Lunkar, CA ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: Present appeal has been filed by revenue against order dated 08/07/16 passed by Ld. CIT (A)-5, Bangalore for assessment year 2011-12 on following grounds of appeal: "1. The order of the CIT(A)-5, Bangalore is opposed to the law and not on the facts and circumstances of the case. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d deduction u/s 80JJAA by holding that deduction has been claimed by assessee in respect of employment of new workmen during previous which is not provided suggestive in the provisions. The Ld.AO therefore, disallowed excess deduction claimed in computation amounting to Rs.3,14,48,959/-. 3. Aggrieved by addition made by Ld.AO, assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A) who allowed the claim of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nder section 80JJAA of the Act. It was held that once deduction is allowed in first year then 30% of such additional wages is to be allowed as deduction in each of subsequent two years. However, for assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07 in ITA Nos. 151 and 152/B/2016 vide order dated 16/12/16 and for assessment year 2010-11 in ITA (TP)A No.163/B/2015 vide order dated 24/06/16 remanded the issue ....