Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Twina Polyplast, Daman vs Department Of Income Tax

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal20 March 2015

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The Tribunal, following the co-ordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years and the High Court decision it relied upon, holds that the assessee's entitlement to deduction under Section 80IB cannot be defeated merely because the factory licence was obtained after commencement of manufacture, and it therefore sustains the CIT(A)'s allowance of the deduction and dismisses the Revenue's appeal.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL"D" BENCH, AHMEDABADBEFORE SHRI MUKUL Kr. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER ANDSHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI ACCOUNTANT MEMBERITA No.1452/Ahd/2011A.Y.2007-08

The ITO, Vapi Ward-4, Vs M/s. Twina Poly Plast Daman. Unit No.G-12, Chirag Indl. Complex, Golden Indl. Estate, Dabhel, Nani Daman.

PAN: AADFT 7341L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Revenue by : Shri B.L. Yadav, Sr.D.R. Assessee(s) by : Smt. Urvashi Sodhan, AR

सुनवाई क तार ख/ Date of Hea ring : 17/03/2015 घोषणा क तार ख /Date of P ronouncement: 20/03/2015

आदेश /O R D E R

PER: MUKUL KUMAR SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER This is an Appeal filed by the Revenue arising from the order of learned CIT(A), Valsad dated 24.02.2011 and the grounds raised are reproduced below:

"1. the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in allowing the deduction u/s.80IB of the Act stating that disallowance of claim of deduction u/s.80IB of the Act on the sole ground that the assessee was not having factory license before it started manufacturing activities is without any merits.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in not considering the point that the assessee has failed to prove that it has commenced the manufacturing activity on or before 31.03.2004, as stipulated in Section 80IB of the Act."

2. While passing the order u/s.143(3) dated 18.12.2009, the AO has mentioned that the Assessee firm has claimed a deduction u/s.80IB of ITA No.1452/Ahd/2011 M/s. Twina Polyplast For A.Y.2007-08 -2-

Rs.16,41,375/-. On perusal of the claim, it was found that the license was issued on 18.11.2004 then he has mentioned that in the past for A.Y.2004-05 and 2006-07 on that basis the claim of deduction u/s.80IB was disallowed. On the same line as happened in the past, the claim of deduction u/s.80IB was disallowed for the year under consideration as well.

3. When the matter was carried before the First Appellate Authority, learned CIT(A) has followed the past history and granted the claim of deduction.

4. With this factual background, we have been informed that in Assessee's own case for A.Y.2005-06 and 2006-07 ITAT 'D' Bench Ahmedabad in ITA No.2776 & 3139/Ahd/2010 order dated 21.11.2014, the Respected Co-ordinate Bench has followed few orders of the Hon'ble High Court specially the decision of Jolly Polymers (Appeal No.1622/hd/2012) order dated 21st February, 2013 and decided the issue in favour of the Assessee. Respectfully following of those decisions and also the past history of the case, we hereby uphold the view of learned CIT(A). Resultantly, Grounds of Appeal are dismissed.

5. In the result, the Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

Sd/- Sd/- (ANIL CHATURVEDI) (MUKUL Kr. SHRAWAT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 20/03/2015 Prabhat Kr. Kesarwani, Sr. P.S. आदेश क त ल प अ े षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : ITA No.1452/Ahd/2011 M/s. Twina Polyplast For A.Y.2007-08 -3-

1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant 2. यथ / The Respondent. 3. संबं धत आयकर आयु त / Concerned CIT

4. आयकर आयु त(अपील) / The CIT(A)-III, Ahmedabad

5. वभागीय त न ध, आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad

6. गाड फाईल / Guard file.

आदेशानुस ार / BY ORDER,

उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad

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