TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (9) TMI 1950
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai on the following issues :- i) Sales tax refund received by the appellant company under section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act (the Act for short). ii) Restricting deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act relating to Goa and Kanjikode Industrial Undertakings of the appellant company. iii) Allocation of interest of dealership deposits and bank guarantee commission to the Goa and Kanjikode Undertakings for computation of profits eligible for deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act. iv) Allocation of certain percentage of expenses of Research and Development (R&D for short) expenses to Goa and Kanjikode Undertakings for computing profits eligible for deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act. v) Adjustment m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3.3) During the hearing proceedings before the Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai, the appellant company has argued that though the Ld. CIT(A) relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court, his observations on the said Judgement would actually support the appellant's case because it was mentioned that income would be chargeable to tax in the year in which said appeal relating to sale tax issue attains finality. In the impugned case, the Sales Tax Department has filed further appeal and refund was not granted to the appellant company and instead the same was adjusted by the Sales Tax Department for other demands. Thus, the appellant company has not received/obtained refund and hence even on mercantile system of accounting, the appellant company h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....und from Sales Tax Department. Appeal of the Revenue on this ground is dismissed. 4. Ground No. 2 : Allocation of Corporate overheads and depreciation while computing deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act. This issue was discussed by the Ld. AO in paragraph 4(i) of the assessment order at page No. 2&3 and paragraph 8 of the Ld. CIT(A)'s order at page 8&9. Ld. AR of the appellant company has brought to the notice of the Bench that this issue was concluded by the ITAT's order in appellant's own case in its favour for A.Y. 1998-99. Relevant discussion starts from paragraph 12 page 8 and findings of Hon'ble ITAT are in paragraphs 25 to 27 at page No. 20-22 of the order. Respectfully following the previous order of the ITAT, the addition made....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... covered by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Zandu Pharmaceuticals Works Pvt. and in the case of Hindustan Unilever Ltd. also. In view of the same, it was pleaded that the addition made by the Ld. AO, confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) should be deleted. 5.3) Ld. DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 5.4) After hearing both sides, it was decided to follow decision of Hon'ble ITAT in appellant's own case for A.Y. 1995-96 in principle, but the Ld. AO is directed to see whether in these two units, only parachute oil is manufactured and if the R&D expenditure claimed by the appellant does not relate to Parachute oil manufacturing then appellant would succeed in his argument. After verifying the factual position, Ld. A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) After hearing both sides, it is decided to respectfully follow the order of the ITAT of the earlier year in principle in this year also. But, the Ld. AO is directed to verify these units are generating surplus in this year also and if so, the order of Hon'ble ITAT of earlier year had to be followed by him. Accordingly, Ld. AO may take a decision based on facts. 7) Ground No. 5 7.1) Ld. AR of the appellant has mentioned that this is already covered in other grounds and not pressed. Hence, ground is dismissed as not pressed. 8) Ground No. 6 : The appellant has submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) is not correct in holding that the quantum of deduction u/s. 80HHC is to be reduced in view of the provisions of section 80IA(9A) of the Act....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Act. Here, the facts are not very clear. The Ld. AO is directed to see facts and figures submitted by the appellant company in this connection and follow the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Associated Capsules (P) Ltd. (supra) as mentioned above. 9) The Appellant has raised two more additional grounds relating to shunt capacitors given to Rajasthan State Electricity Board (RSEB for short) on lease and advertisement and sales promotion expenses. 9.1) During the hearing proceedings before the Bench, Ld. AR of the appellant pleaded that if the sale and lease back transaction related to RSEB is treated as finance lease, then lease rental has been bifurcated between principal component and the interest component....