TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (8) TMI 813
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h sections 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Act dated 22.03.2021. 1.1. Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Honourable Ld. CIT (A) erred in denying claim of deduction u/s. 10AA of the Act, without considering the facts the said claim was allowed in all the earlier years. 1.2. Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Honourable Ld. CIT(A) erred in denying claim of deduction u/s. 10AA of Act, stating that the Form- 56F had no name and signature, without considering the facts the copy of Form 56F was filed before Ld. CIT(A) was downloaded copy from the income tax portal itself which does not show the said name and membership number of the Chartered Accountant signing the Form-56F, rather it reflects the logo of income tax which show the authenticity and genuineness of Form 56F, which Ld. CIT(A) should have verified from the Portal, as all submission of the Forms and Returns are to be filed online. 2.0. On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the Honourable Ld. CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the Ground of Appeal for wrongly calculating tax at 30% without considering the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bed under the respective law and were paid before the due date of filling return of income. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld AO erred in making disallowance under section 36(1) (va) without considering the various jurisprudence wherein it was held that payment made for the employees PF contribution before due of the filling of return of income should be allowed as deduction including the decision in of Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd [2014] 368 ITR 749 (Bom). 3. Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and circumstance of the case and in law the Ld AO erred in calculating tax at 30% without considering the fact that the Turnover of the company during the A.Y. 2016-17 (FY 2015-16) was below Rs. 50 Crores for calculating the tax rates @25% in A.Y. 2018-19. 4. Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and circumstance of the case and in law the Ld AO erred in not giving credit of Minimum Alternate Tax of Rs. 67,59,595/- of earlier years. 5. The Appellant prays that it may be allowed to add, alter or amend the above grounds of appeal and to make detailed submissions at the time of appeal. 4. It is observed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted for producing either the same commodities or some distinct commodities-Textile Machinery Corporation Ltd. v. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 195 and CIT v. Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd [1977] 108 ITR 367. It should be emphasised that it was common ground between the parties that the assessee-company has increased the capacity of its cement manufacturing plant from 600 tonnes per day to 1,600 tonnes per day by setting up new machinery and plant necessary for that purpose. In our opinion, the Tribunal was right when it expressed its view that the question involved was not a question whether there would be no bar to the view which the ITO has taken on principle of res judicata. The neat question to which the Tribunal addressed itself, and in our opinion rightly, was whether the ITO was justified in refusing to continue the relief of tax holiday granted to the assessee-company for the assessment year 1968-69 in the assessment year under reference, i.e., 1969-70 without disturbing the relief granted for the initial year. It should be stated that there is no provision in the scheme of section 80J similar to one which we find in case of development rebate which could be withdrawn in subsequent years f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s which were in existence during the assessment year 200001 vis-à-Vis the claim to exemption under section 10A. Therefore, the department cannot deny the benefit of section 10A for subsequent assessment years i.e., assessment years 2002-03 to 2004-05. Besides that, neither the Commissioner (Appeals) nor the Tribunal have recorded a finding of fact that the SEEPZ unit is not formed by splitting up of the first unit. [Para 6] In view of the above, the question as formulated in the present facts, does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. [Para 7]" 6. It's a settled position of law as discussed (supra) that reversal of exemption claimed u/s. 10A/10AA can only be done from the very first year itself once the claim of the assessee is allowed in the previous years, no rejection of the claim can be done in the balance succeeding years. In view of this we found the order of Ld. CIT (A) on this issue highly arbitrary, against law and bad on count of merits also. In the result ground no.1 along with its sub grounds is allowed. 7. Ground no. 2 pertains to wrong application of tax rate. In the relevant A.Y. assessee company was entit....