TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 166
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Income Tax (Appeals)-19, New Delhi ['the Ld. CIT(A) for short] for Assessment Years 2012-13 to 2015-16 respectively. 2. Since, the issues raised in all four appeals filed by the assessee are common, therefore, they are being taken together for consideration. We first take up the appeal No.5719/DEL/2016 which is related to Assessment Year 2012-13 and the grounds of appeal are as under: "1. That the Ld. CIT(A) New Delhi erred in fact in allowing deduction under section 10AA of the Act to the extent of Rs. 1,84,57,581/- instead of deduction claimed by the appellant under section 10AA of the Act of Rs. 2,54,87,936/-. 2. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) after holding that the app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....SEZ area after getting approval of the Assn. Development Commissioner of NSEZ on 07-07-2010. During the year, the appellant had e-filed its return of income on 30-09-2012 declaring an income of Rs. 23,37,130/- after claiming deduction under section 10AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") The case was selected for scrutiny assessment through CASS and the income of the appellant has been assessed at Rs. 4,04,30,030/- after disallowing exemption claimed by the appellant under section 10AA of the Act based on various observations made by the Id. Assessing Officer ("the AO"). 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 5. In this appeal, ground nos.1 and 2 are related to de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... reconstruction of business already in existence, it is entitled to the deduction under section 10AA for subsequent years. Since the assessee had been granted claim of deduction right from the assessment year 2011-12 under section 10AA, consequently it cannot be denied deduction for the subsequent years inasmuch as restraint of section 10AA cannot be considered for every year of claim of deduction, but can be considered only in the year of formation of the business. Refer Commissioner of Income-tax v. Tata Communications Internet Services Ltd. [2012] 251 CTR 290 (Delhi)" 7. Ld. Counsel for the assessee also argued on the line of the discussion made above. 8. On the other hand, the Ld. CIT(A) has given his finding on the basis of vario....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....A(10) are, therefore, clearly applicable and therefore, deduction available to the appellant under section 10AA, deserves to be adjusted. For this purpose, one has to consider the turnovers of the erstwhile clients of M/s. Oriental Agencies and also the variation in allocation of expenses between the 2 units. The variation arising on account of above will be eligible for only 50% of deduction under section 10AA as would have been available to M/s. Oriental Agencies, if the same had been booked in that concern. (This will negate the effect of this arrangement)." 9. On this finding, the Ld. CIT(A) has bifurcated the claim made by the appellant company u/s 10AA and allowed partial deduction of Rs. 1,84,57,581/- in place of claimed deduction....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....order to deviate its income/profit. We are also unable to understand under which provision the Ld. CIT(A) has bifurcated the exemption claimed by the assessee u/s 10AA because as per our understanding there is no such provision available u/s 10AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Keeping in view the facts discussed above, we are of this considered view that the findings given by the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the assessee's appeal of ground Nos.1 and 2 are allowed. 11. Appeal of ground No.3, 4 & 5 have not been pressed by the assessee. They are dismissed as not pressed. 12. Appeal of ground Nos.6 & 7 are general in nature, there is no need for adjudication. 13. In the result, the assessee's appeal is part....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... unit does not satisfy the condition enumerated in clause 2 of sub-section 4 in section 10AA of the IT Act, 1961 that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in applying section 80IA(10) of the Act as the unit does not satisfy the condition enumerated in that section. As we have already discussed above that the Ld. CIT(A) on the basis of findings given by the Ld. Assessing Officer in the assessment order by recording the statements of purchasers and suppliers/creditors to the appellant company along with the electricity consumption of the appellant company, the Ld. CIT(A) has bifurcated the exemption claimed by the assessee u/s 10AA of the IT Act, 1961 and partially allowed the exemption while partially disallowing it. The case of the Revenue is that the ....