TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 491
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering the fact that the disallowance of deduction u/s 80IC to the tune of Rs. 3,15,64,674/-was made by the AO on the basis of the fact that the assessee was involved in interunit purchase/transfer of pre used plant and machinery and its value was more than 20% of the total value of plant & machinery, which was in violation of the conditions stipulated u/s 80IC? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering the fact that the addition made by the AO to the tune of Rs. 3,45,376/ was on the basis of discrepancies in the value of machinery found at the premises ie. Pantnagar Unit I and II and the amount appearing in 10CCB audit reports? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in restricting the addition of the bogus expense/accommodation entry made u/s 69C of the Act from Ms. Radhika Enterprises at the rate 12% by merely relying on the fact that the gross profit of the assessee during the earlier A.Ys. was @12% without considering the fact that the whole exp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....agar Unit I & II and the amount appearing in 10CCB audit reports. In assessment for A.Y. 2013-14, the claim of depreciation of Rs. 10,38,145/- in respect of machinery at Pantnagar Unit I, was disallowed. Accordingly, the AO disallowed stating that in the course of survey proceedings, the assessee failed to explain the discrepancies with documentary evidences found at premises and that in Audit report Form 10CCB. Further, same was admitted by the director and employee after being confronted with evidences gathered. Also, the department had not accepted the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) and filed appeal to ITAT on this issue. Thus, the claim of depreciation of Rs 3,45,376/- (Rs. 2,45,818/- + Rs 99,558) worked out was disallowed. 5. Ground no.3 pertains to the disallowance of alleged bogus Purchases from M/s. Radhika Enterprises. According to the assessment order, on query in this regard it was explained that Radhika Enterprises was a labour supplier and it had supplied labour to the assessee and the assessee had deducted TDS on the same. Further, the CIT (A) had partly allowed the appeal of the assessee on this ground in favour of the assessee. The submission was not found acceptable....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....from M/s Radhika Enterprises to 12%. 7. The ld.DR has placed reliance on the grounds of appeal and the assessment order. However, he has not controverted the factual aspects of the case as discussed in the preceding paras by the ld.CIT(A) placing reliance on the orders of ITAT in previous assessment years in assessee's own case involving identical facts involved and decided in favour of the assessee. 8. It is an admitted fact that all the issued raised in the grounds raised by the Revenue came up for adjudication before ITAT in ITA. Nos. 6207, 6208, 6209, 6210, 6211, 6212 & 6213/Mum/2017 for the A.Y. 2008-09 to 2014-15 and ITAT by common order dated 08.10.2021 has decided all the issues in favour of the assessee which is placed on record. Further, in ITA No.876/Mum/2021(AY 2015-16) dated 14 July, 2022, hon'ble ITAT again decided the issues in favour of the assessee based on its earlier orders(supra).The ld.CIT(DR) did not controvert these facts. Therefore, considering the facts of the case as discussed in the preceding paras, we do not find any infirmity in the appellate order which is therefore, upheld, dismissing all the above grounds of appeal of the Revenue. 9. In the res....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....order is reproduced as under: "10. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material on record. We find that the addition made by the AO on account of excess claim of depreciation of Rs. 2,10,48,677/- on the inflated plant & machinery of Rs. 6,01,39,077/- as found by the survey team the detail whereof is given in para 6 of the assessment order. We note that in this case in respect of unit No.1 the total value of plant & machinery as per form 10CCB was Rs. 8,64,16,518/- whereas total value of machinery taken at the time of survey was Rs. 2,62,77,441/- after providing depreciation of 20% which has resulted into this difference. We have also examined the yearwise details of plant & machinery filed by the assessee along with details of addition, deletion, depreciation, additional depreciation and net WDV year wise and also the findings of the order of Ld. CIT(A) that no corroborative evidences were brought on records by the AO to support these additions, appear to be convincing and plausible. We do agree with the contentions of the Ld. A.R. that the unit No.1 at Pantnagar which was commissioned in A.Y. 2008-09, the total value of machinery report....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ertaining to the excess depreciation had not been accepted by the department and it had filed an appeal before the ITAT. Thus, the issue under consideration has attained finality and had been decided by the Hon'ble ITAT in favour of the appellant. In view of the above ITAT order passed in appellant's own case for AY 2008-09 to 2015-16, the issue had been decided in favour of the assessee and hence the addition made on account of depreciation was liable to be deleted. 11.4 It was also submitted that, the AO in his order alleged that the assessee had been claiming improper depreciation on machinery amounting to Rs. 2,49,535/-, being the difference between value of machinery recorded in books of accounts and value of machinery found at the time of survey. However, in doing so, he failed to appreciate that the assessee had claimed depreciation on machinery properly and in accordance with law and the figures of machinery on which the assessee had been claiming depreciation were audited figures as per it's books of accounts and the complete details of same were available in Form 10CCB as well as the tax audit reports filed by the assessee. The AO had not doubted the authenticity of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he appeals for the earlier years, where the issue stood decided the issue in the favour of the assessee. Following the decision of ITAT, he held that the disallowance of depreciation of Rs 2,49,535/- could not be sustained. The AO was directed to delete the addition of Rs 2,49,535/-. 13. The ld.DR has relied on the grounds of appeal and the assessment order in this regard. 14. Having gone through the assessment and appellate orders as also the submissions of the assessee, we find no infirmity in the conclusion drawn by the assessee who has duly followed the decision of the coordinate bench in assesses own case where similar disallowance of depreciation has been deleted in the previous assessment years. Accordingly, the ground no.1 of the appeal is dismissed. 15. In ground no.2.the Revenue has claimed that the ld.CIT(A) was not justified in allowing claim of deduction without appreciating that the claim was not made by way of return filed on or before the due date specified under subsection (1) of section 139 and hence the claim of deduction of amount of Rs. 2,82,81,492/- could not be allowed to it. 16. The AO observed that on perusal of the return filed by the assessee,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er of assessment was made, the assessee was entitled for the additional depreciation. Section 80-IB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Deductions - Profits and gains from industrial undertakings (Condition as to number of workers) - Assessment year 2005-06 - Even though necessary certificate in Form 10CCB along with return of income had not been filed but same was filed before final order of assessment was made, assessee was entitled to claim deduction under section 80-IB [In favour of assessee]" 17.1 It was observed that even though necessary certificate in Form 10CCB along with return of income had not been filed but same was filed before final order of the assessment was made, the assessee was entitled to claim deduction under section 80-IB.The assessee further relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Delhi ITAT in the case of Canadian Specialty Vinyls Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) in ITA No.7612/Del/2019, where identical issue was decided in the favour of the assessee by placing reliance on the hon'ble Supreme Court ruling of CIT vs. GM Knitting Industries Pvt. Ltd, PCIT vs. Wipro Ltd ( 446 ITR 1 (SC)) and High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Shivanand Electronics (1994) 209 ITR 63. 1....