Capital Foods Exports Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs Assessee
- CitationITA NO.5116/MUM/2012 (A.Y. 2009-10)
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal, having found that the identical issue was decided in favour of the assessee in its own order for the preceding assessment year, holds that the same view applies. The principle relied on is that where the facts and issues are identical to those decided in an earlier decision of the same Tribunal in the assessee's own case, the earlier decision is to be followed, and the income relating to SEZ units is excluded from the book profit computed under section 115JB, so that the assessee is entitled to the exemption under sub-section (6) of that section. Interest levied under sections 234B and 234C, being consequential on the computation of the tax liability under section 115JB, is to be recomputed by the Assessing Officer in the light of the revised computation.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अिधकरण मुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES 'C' MUMBAI सव ौी आय.पी. बंसल, याियक सदःय एवं चंि पुजार , लेखा सदःय के सम BEFORE SHRI I.P. BANSAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA NO.5116/MUM/2012 (A.Y. 2009-10)
M/s.Capital Foods Exports Pvt. Ltd. ITO 8(1)(2), Villa Capital, Sadhana Compound, Mumbai. Oshiwara Bridge, S.V.Road, Vs. (Respondent) Jogeshwari (West), Mumbai 400 102 PAN:AACCC 2649A (Appellant )
Appellant by : Shri Kishore M. Rajeshirke Respondent by : Shri Premanand J.
Date of hearing : 24/02/2015 Date of pronouncement : 24/02/2015
ORDER
PER I.P.BANSAL, J.M:
This is an appeal filed by the assessee and it is directed against order passed by Ld. CIT(A)-16, Mumbai dated 15/06/2012 for assessment year 2009-10. The grounds of appeal read as under:
"1. On facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XVI, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)'s) has erred in upholding that the appellant is not entitled to exemption as provided in subsection(6) of the Section 115JB of the income Tax Act, 1961 and hence is liable to be pay minimum alternative tax (MAT) as book profit u/s. 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2 ITA NO.5116/MUM/2012 (A.Y. 2009-12) 2. On facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A)'s has erred in upholding in levying interest u/s. 234B and u/s. 234C on MAT levied u/s. 115JB of the Act."
2. At the outset, it was submitted by Ld. AR that the issue raised by the assessee is covered by the decision of the Tribunal in assessee's own case for A.Y 2008-09. Copy of order of the Tribunal dated 23/5/2013 passed in ITA No.70/Mum/2012 is placed in the paper book at page 2 to 5. Thus, it was submitted that the appeal filed by the assessee should be allowed.
3. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied upon the order passed by AO and Ld. CIT(A).
4. We have heard both the parties and their contentions have carefully been considered. After careful consideration, we found that similar issue was raised by the assessee in respect of assessment year 2008-09 and the same was decided in favour of the assessee vide order dated 23/05/2013. The relevant observations of the Tribunal is reproduced below:
"5. As the facts and issues are identical, respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal, we direct the A.O to treat the interest income of Rs.3,16,275/- as part of the profit for calculating the deduction u/s. 10A of the Act. Ground No.1 & 2 of the assessee's appeal are accordingly allowed.
6. A perusal of the decision in the case of Genesys International (supra) on identical issue, the Tribunal has held that the authorities below was not justified to include the book profit in respect of SEZ units while computing the book profit u/s. 115JB of the Act. Reversing the orders of the authorities below, the Tribunal held that income relating to SEZ units is excluded while computing the book profit u/s.115JB of the Act. The facts and issues are identical, respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal, we direct the AO to allow the exemption as provided in section 115JB of the Act. Ground No.1& 2 are accordingly allowed."
7. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Accordingly, following the aforementioned order of the Tribunal in assessee's own case in respect of A.Y. 2008-09 we allow Ground No.1.
3 ITA NO.5116/MUM/2012 (A.Y. 2009-12) 5. So far as it relates to Ground No.2, no arguments whatsoever were made. However, levy of interest under section 234C & 234C will be consequential and the AO is directed to recompute interest after giving effect to Ground No.1 of this order. We direct accordingly.
6. The appeal filed by the assessee is considered to be allowed in the manner aforesaid.
Order pronounced in the open court on 24/02/2015 आदे श क" घोषणा खुले यायालय म& 'दनांकः 24/02/2015 को क" गई ।
Sd/- Sd/- (चंि पुजार /CHANDRA POOJARI ) (आय.पी. बंसल / I.P. BANSAL) लेखा सदःय /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER याियक सदःय / JUDICIAL EMBER मुंबई Mumbai; 'दनांक Dated 24/02/2015 आदे श क" ूितिल.प अमे.षत/Copy षत of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ1 / The Appellant 2. ू2यथ1 / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयु3(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 4. आयकर आयु3 / CIT
5. .वभागीय ूितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai
6. गाड फाईल / Guard file.
आदे शानुसार/ ार BY ORDER, स2या.पत ूित //True Copy//
उप/सहायक उप सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अिधकरण मुंबई / ITAT, Mumbai व.िन.स./Vm, Sr. PS
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free