Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad
The Ito, Ward-1(4),, Ahmedabad vs Doshion Limited, Ahmedabad on 12 September, 2017
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
AHMEDABAD "C" BENCH
(BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
& SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER)
ITA. No: 1895/ & 1905/AHD/2011
(Assessment Year: 2007-08)
Income Tax Officer, Ward- V/S Doshion Ltd. at 24/25/26,
1 (4), Ahmedabad Phase-II,GIDC Estate,
Vatva, Ahmedabad
Doshion Ltd. at 24/25/26, V/s DCIT (OSD) Range-1,
Phase-II,GIDC Estate, Ahmedabad
Vatva, Ahmedabad
(Appellant) (Respondent)
ITA. No: 1990 & 2210/AHD/2011
(Assessment Year: 2007-08)
Income Tax Officer, Ward- V/S Doshion Ltd. at 24/25/26,
1 (4), Ahmedabad Phase-II,GIDC Estate,
Vatva, Ahmedabad
Doshion Ltd. at 24/25/26, V/s Income Tax Officer, Ward-
Phase-II,GIDC Estate, 1 (4), Ahmedabad
Vatva, Ahmedabad
(Appellant) (Respondent)
PAN: AAACD8771G
Appellant by : Shri D.P. Gupta with Prasoon Kabra Sr. D.R.
Respondent by : Shri S.N. Soparkar with Parin Shah A.R.
(आदे श)/ORDER
2 ITA Nos. 1905 & 1895/Ahd/2011 and Ors.
. A.Ys. 2007-08 & 2008-09
Date of hearing : 23 -08-2017
Date of Pronouncement : 12 -09-2017
PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
1. ITA Nos. 1905 & 1895/Ahd/2011 are cross appeals by the Assessee and the Revenue preferred against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-VI, Ahmedabad dated 12.10.2006 pertaining to A.Y. 2007-08 and ITA Nos. 2210 & 1990/Ahd/2011 are cross appeals of the Assessee and the Revenue preferred against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-VI, Ahmedabad dated 24.06.2011 pertaining to A.Y. 2008-09.
2. Representatives of both sides agreed that the facts in issues in the captioned appeals are identical. Therefore, on such concession, we heard all these appeals and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. We heard the rival submissions on the facts of ITA Nos. 1905 & 1895/Ahd/2011.
3. We will first take up the appeal of the Assessee in ITA No. 1905/Ahd/2011 for A.Y. 2007-08.
4. First ground is of general in nature and needs no separate adjudication.
5. Ground no. 2 relates to the disallowance of Rs. 98,898/- made in respect of employees' contribution of ESI u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act.
6. This issue is no more res integra as the same has been decided against the assessee and in favour of the revenue by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court 3 ITA Nos. 1905 & 1895/Ahd/2011 and Ors. . A.Ys. 2007-08 & 2008-09 in the case of GSRTC Ltd. 366 ITR 170. Respectfully following the same, we decide the impugned issue against the assessee. Ground no. 2 is allowed.
7. Ground no. 3 relates to the denial of deduction u/s. 80IB of the Act in respect of the following items:
(i) Recovery of bad debts written off in earlier years Rs. 15,10,497/-
(ii) Excess provision of earlier years written back Rs. 45,04,125/-
(iii) Gain on foreign exchange fluctuation Rs. 15,23,875/-
(iv) Insurance Claim Rs. 2,93,986/-
(v) Other items Rs. 14,000/-
8. At the very outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee stated that he is not pressing the issue at Serial no. 5 for the smallness of the amount. Therefore, the same is dismissed.
9. In respect of the Other items, the ld. counsel vehemently stated that when these items were written off, they went to reduce the eligible profit and therefore when the same are written back during the year under consideration, they should be allowed as eligible for the claim of deduction u/s.80IB of the Act.
10. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the submissions of the ld. counsel.
It is not coming out from the records that when these items were written off they reduced the eligible profit of the assessee. Therefore in the interest of justice, we restore the entire issue to the files of the A.O. The A.O. is directed to verify when the bad debts were written off, the eligible profits of the assessee were reduced. Further, when the provisions were made in earlier years, 4 ITA Nos. 1905 & 1895/Ahd/2011 and Ors. . A.Ys. 2007-08 & 2008-09 the same were charged to the eligible profit. The A.O. is also directed to verify whether the foreign exchange fluctuation gain is on revenue account or capital account and if found on revenue account for the eligible business, the same should be treated as eligible for deduction u/s. 80IB of the Act. Similarly, the A.O. is also directed to verify when the claim of loss was made whether the same was debited to the eligible profit of the assessee and if found so, then the Insurance claim should be allowed as eligible for deduction u/s. 80IB of the Act. The assessee is directed to furnish necessary details for verification. With these directions, ground no. 3 is treated as allowed for statistical purpose.
11. Ground no. 4 relates to the disallowance of deduction of Rs. 39,53,685/- u/s. 80IB of the Act.
12. During the course of the scrutiny assessment proceedings, the A.O. noticed that the assessee is getting some of the manufacturing done at Vatwa. The A.O. was of the opinion that the assessee is entitled for deduction u/s. 80IB only on profit derived from manufacturing business of the unit and not on the profit which is attributable to other units or Job workers. The assessee was asked to explain its claim of deduction u/s. 80IB of the Act. In its reply, the assessee stated that the majority of the manufacturing work in respect to the water treatment plant is being carried out by the assessee at the Katwada Unit. Only the work of manufacture/fabrication of Skids, is carried out at Vatva unit. It was explained that the value of such work carried out at Vatva unit hardly constitutes 2% of the value of the plant manufactured at Kathwada. The assessee contended that since more than 90% of the manufacturing is carried out at the Kathwada Unit, the deduction u/s. 80IB should not be disallowed.
5 ITA Nos. 1905 & 1895/Ahd/2011 and Ors.. A.Ys. 2007-08 & 2008-09
13. The A.O. did not accept the contention of the assessee and stated that profit to the extent of 10% cannot be said to be derived from the manufacturing business of the unit. Hence the proportional profit is to be disallowed from the eligible profit of the assessee for deduction u/s. 80IB of the Act. The A.O. accordingly computed an amount of Rs. 13,17,89,498/- and disallowed the same from the deduction claimed by the assessee u/s. 80IB of the Act by reducing the claim of Rs. 39,53,685/-.
14. Assessee strongly agitated the matter before the ld. CIT(A) but without any success.
15. Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee stated that when the assessee got its job work done at Vatva unit, job work charges were debited to the Profit and Loss account. It is the say of the ld. counsel that both the lower authorities have grossly erred in appreciating the facts in true perspective. Per contra, the ld. D.R. strongly supported the findings of the A.O.
16. We have carefully considered the orders of the authorities below. It is true that some of the work was carried out at Vatva unit. It is equally true that the job work charges have been debited to the Porif tand Losss account. We further find that the total job work done at Vatva unit constitutes hardly 2 to 5% of the total revenue of the assessee. Added with the fact that the job work charged have been charged to the Profit and Loss account. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the disallowance of the claim of deduction u/s. 80IB of the Act. We, therefore, set aside the findings of the ld. CIT(A) and direct the A.O. to allow the deduction of Rs. 39,53,685/- u/s. 80IB of the Act. Ground no. 4 is allowed.
6 ITA Nos. 1905 & 1895/Ahd/2011 and Ors.. A.Ys. 2007-08 & 2008-09
17. Ground no. 5 relates to the disallowance of deduction u/s. 80IB of the Act on amount of Rs. 62,93,028/-.
18. During the course of the scrutiny assessment proceedings, the A.O. noticed that the following expenses were allocated to only Vatva unit of the assessee which is not eligible for deduction:
(i) Membership & Subscription Expenses Rs. 1,43,079/-
(ii) ROC filing Fee Rs. 18,608/-
(iii) Municipal Taxes Rs. 1,50,453/-
(iv) Directors Expenses Rs. 3,58,57,020/-
(v) Insurance on motor car Rs. 241590/-
(vi) Toll tax and Parking fee Rs. 1,04,009/-
19. The A.O. noticed that the assessee has allocated some of the indirect expenses which are not to a single unit of the assessee on the basis of turnover. The A.O. was of the firm belief that the aforementioned expenses should also have been allocated on the basis of turnover to Kathwada Unit which is eligible for deduction u/s. 80IB(10). The assessee was show caused to explain the same.
The assessee filed a detailed reply vide letter dated 30.12.2009 and the same reads as under:-
"1. From the unit wise P&L A/c. submitted by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings, your goodselves have asked the assessee to furnish explanation in respect of basis of allocation of certain expenses allocated to the Vatva Unit of the assessee. In this regard, the assessee submits as under:
1.1.1 With regards to ROC filing fees of Rs.18,608/-, it is stated that the said expenditure is in respect of the filing fees paid in respect of filing of various documents in compliance with the provisions of Companies Act, 7 ITA Nos. 1905 & 1895/Ahd/2011 and Ors. . A.Ys. 2007-08 & 2008-09 and since the expenditure are related to the corporate office of the assessee, they are allocated to Vatva Unit of the assessee. 1.1.2 With regards to the expenses of membership & subscription of Rs.1,43,079/-, the assessee states that the said expenditure pertains to the membership & subscription of magazines subscribed at the Vatva unit of the assessee. Since the magazines are subscribed and used at Vatva Unit, the expenditure in respect of the same is allocated to the Vatva unit of the assessee.
1.1.3 With regards to the Municipal Taxes ofRs.1,50,453/-, the assessee states that, as the expenditure relates to the officer building of Vatva and other units of the assessee and not to the Kathwada or Kandia unit, the same has been allocate to the Vatva unit of the assessee. 1.1.4 With regard to the insurance premium on car of Rs.2,31,037/- and insurance premium on two wheelers of Rs.10,553/-, the assessee states that since the expenditure on insurance premium relates to the capital assets of the Vatva unit of the assessee. The corresponding insurance expenditure have been allocate to the Vatva unit of the assessee.
With regards to the expenses of Toll Tax of Rs. 1,04,009/-, it is submitted that the said expenditure relates to the Toll Tax and parking charges in respect of the four and two wheelers of the Vatva unit of the assessee, and accordingly the same are debited to the Vatva unit of the assessee.
The assessee furnished returned clarification regarding allocation of directors related expenditure to various units of the assessee as under:
"In this connection the assessee states that, during the year under consideration the assessee has made total payment of Rs.3,58,57,020/- to the directors of the assessee company, which has been allocated to the units of the assessee company as per the time devoted by the directors in looking after the business of 8 ITA Nos. 1905 & 1895/Ahd/2011 and Ors. . A.Ys. 2007-08 & 2008-09 the various units of the assessee. During the year the assessee company has allocated the total expenditure of Rs.3,58,57,020/- as under
Particulars Vatva & Kathwada TWAD KANDLA unit Total Others unit eligible undertaking eligible for Amt. for 80IB exemption u/s10AA Commission 11286952 2262288 461545 412506 14423291 Director Fbt exempted 767655 174000 32077 28669 1002400 allowance -
director
Fbt taxable 362321 74580 14883 13301 465085
allowance -
director
House rent all - 5117167 1108800 212083 189549 6627600
director
Key man 1753937 1296130 103898 92559 3246825
insurance -
director
Medical 42273 1440 1287 45000
reimbursement-
director
P.F exployer 954748 266112 41588 37169 1299617
contribution -
director
Remuneration - 5999522 2217600- 279910 250170 8747202
director
Total 26284575 7399510 1147425 1025511 35857020
With regards to the basis of allocation made by the assessee, assessee firm states that 50% of expenditure related to the two of the Directors of assessee company Mr. Rakshit Doshi and Aashit Doshi who are looking after Kathwada unit are allocated to said unit and balance expenditure is allocated towards Vatva and other units. It is submitted that as in TWAD unit, not much involvement of 9 ITA Nos. 1905 & 1895/Ahd/2011 and Ors. . A.Ys. 2007-08 & 2008-09 directors are required, a reasonable amount has been allocated and even as Kandia unit was commenced in later part of financial year, lumpsum reasonable amount has been allocated. The assessee states that the allocation made by the assessee company is on systematic basis and the aforesaid basis of allocation is being followed by the company regularly on year to year basis and hence the same should be accepted.
20. After considering the afore-stated reply of the assessee, the A.O. was not convinced and observed as under:-
" I have carefully considered submission made by Assessee. The ROC filing fees cannot be said to be related to only Vatva Unit. This expense of the assessee is to be equally distributed between ail units of the assesses. This being fixed expense cannot be allocated on turnover basis but it is to be allocated to all units equally;
Membership and subscription expenses are made for benefit of the employees. The employees1 related expenses have been allocated on the basis of turnover among the unit. Hence, this expense is also required to be allocated between Vatva Unit and Kathwada Unit on the basis of turnover. Employees related expenses of Vatva and Kathwada cannot be allocated independently because the employee are looking after work of both units. Hence, the membership and subscription expenses are also allocated in the ratio of turnover.
The Municipal taxes related to Vatva Officers' building is to be allocated to Vatva Unit only. The contention of the assessee in this regard is accepted Vehicles are used by the employees which is not limited for the purpose of Vatva Unit only. They are used for the purpose of work related to Vatwa and Kathwara Unit. No evidence furnished by the assessee that these expenses are incurred only 10 ITA Nos. 1905 & 1895/Ahd/2011 and Ors. . A.Ys. 2007-08 & 2008-09 for the Vatwa Unit. Hence, expenses related to vehicle insurance premium are allocated between Vatva and Kathwada unit on turnover basis.
Expenses of Toll tax are related to vehicles used for company. Hence, these expenses are to be allocated on the basis of turnover between Vatva and Kathwada unit.
The contention of the assessee that the directors expenses have been allotted on the basis of services given by the directors cannot be accepted. The services of directors are for the company and not limited to any unit. They work as a whole for the assessee company. Further no evidence furnished by the assessee that service of Directors were limited to some specific unit. The bifurcation given by the assessee in this regard is not acceptable. The lump sum allocation made by the assessee is without any justification and supporting evidence. In absence of any specific method available for allocating indirect expenditure, best way to allocate such expenditure is on turnover basis. Hence, these expenses required to be allocated between all units on the basis of turnover. Considering same on turnover basis, revised, allocation of aforesaid expenditure is as under:
Particulars Vatva & Kathwada unit TWAD KANDLA unit Total Others Amt eligible for 80IB undertaking eligible for exemption u/s10AA Director 5633138 27964890 1194039 1064953 35857020 Remuneration & all other incidental expenditure Membership & 23994 119085 - - 143079 Subscription Expenses ROC filing Fee 4652 4652 4652 4652 18608 Insurance on 40515 201075 241590 motor car Rs.2,31 ,037 + 11 ITA Nos. 1905 & 1895/Ahd/2011 and Ors. . A.Ys. 2007-08 & 2008-09 Rs. 10,553 Toll tax and 17442 86567 104009 Parking fee Total 5719741 28376269 1198691 1069605 36364306 The assessee company has considered director remuneration & other indirect expenditure while computing profit derived from Kathwda unit at Rs.73,99,510 whereas if such expenditure is allocated on turnover basis, same works out to Rs.2,83,76,269 hence profit derived from Kathwada unit is reduced by differential amount of Rs 2,09,76,759 on which deduction u/s 80IB is disallowed at Rs. 62,93,028 (30% of Rs. 2,09,76,759).
21. Aggrieved by this, the assessee carried the matter before the ld. CIT(A) and reiterated its contention which did not find any favour from the ld. CIT(A).
22. Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee stated that the assessee has duly explained the basis of allocation of expenditure to various units of the assessee.
The ld. counsel that the expenditure on Membership & Subscription pertains to the magazines subscribed at the Vatva unit of the assessee and, therefore the same is debited at Vatva unit. ROC filing fees relates to the expenditure of the corporate office and therefore charged to Vatva unit. Similarly, Insurance claim on car and two-wheelers pertain to the vehicles relating to the capital assets of the Vatva unit. Total tax and Parking charges are in respect of the vehicles of the Vatva unit and therefore the same are debited to the Vatva unit. It is the say of the ld. counsel that insofar as the Directors remuneration and other incidental expenses are concerned; the assessee has considered only expenditure in relation to the directors who are looking after the work at 12 ITA Nos. 1905 & 1895/Ahd/2011 and Ors. . A.Ys. 2007-08 & 2008-09 Kathwada Unit. Therefore, the entire amount cannot be considered for proportionate disallowance.
23. It was explained that expenditure relating to the two of the directors namely Mr. Rakshit Doshi and Aashit Doshi have been allocated to Kathwada Unit as these two directors were looking after Kadhwada Unit. The ld. D.R. supported the findings of the ld. CIT(A).
24. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the facts in issue. We have already exhibited hereinabove, various items of expenditure which have been re- allocated by the A.O. In our considered opinion, since the Membership & Subscription Expenses pertain to the magazines which are supplied to the Vatva unit, the expenditure can be wholly charged to Vatva unit only. ROC filing fees being for corporate office of the assessee has been rightly allocated on turnover basis. Since the Insurance Premium of vehicles are in respect of the vehicles relating to the capital assets of the Vatva unit, the same has been rightly debited to the Vatva unit. Tol tax and Parking charges have been rightly allocated on turnover basis by the A.O. The only item remains is that of Directors' remuneration and all other incidental expenses. As mention elsewhere, only two of the directors are looking after Kathwada Unit and the assessee has charged on 50% of the expenditure related to them to the Kathwada Unit. We do not find any reason for allocating the balance of the expenditure on turnover basis. We find that the A.O. has allocated the expenditure only on surmise and suspicion and the method of allocation by the assessee has been accepted in the past by the Department and the same cannot be changed accept for just cause. We accordingly direct the A.O.to re-allocate only ROC filing fee and Tol tax and Parking fees on the basis of turnover and 13 ITA Nos. 1905 & 1895/Ahd/2011 and Ors. . A.Ys. 2007-08 & 2008-09 the other expenditures have to be excluded from the re-allocation. Ground no. 5 is partly allowed.
25. Ground no. 6 relates to the disallowance of deduction u/s.80IA of the Act in respect of Profit from business of operating and maintaining an infrastructure facility for supply of drinking water.
26. During the course of assessment proceedings, the A.O. found that the assessee has claimed deduction u/s. 80IB @ 100% of profit derived from Tamilnadu Water Supply & Drainage (TWAD) unit at Rs. 3,09,59,258/-. Assessee was asked to justify its claim for deduction u/s. 80IA in the light of the amended provisions of the Act. In its reply, the assessee stated that it has entered into agreement with TWAD for maintaining the infrastructure facility. It was strongly contended that the assessee satisfies all the conditions laid down in Section 80IA (4) of the Act and is therefore eligible for the deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act. The assessee is only a contractor and not the owner of the plant of TWAD but is a maintenance contractor. The A.O. was of the firm belief that the assessee is only executing works contract awarded by the State Government and therefore not eligible for the claim of deduction u/s. 80IA(4) of the Act. The A.O. accordingly denied the claim of deduction which was confirmed by the ld. CIT(A).
27. Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee reiterated its claim of deduction. It is the say of the ld. counsel that the impugned project was commenced during A.Y. 2005-06 in which year the assessee had claimed deduction of Rs. 2,11,87,992/- and while allowing the claim of deduction, the A.O. had verified the details of such claim in the light of the provisions of Section 80IA(4) of the Act. The ld. counsel strongly stated that since the claim of deduction in the 14 ITA Nos. 1905 & 1895/Ahd/2011 and Ors. . A.Ys. 2007-08 & 2008-09 initial year has been allowed by the A.O. therefore, the same cannot be denied in the subsequent assessment years. The ld. counsel drew our attention to the various clauses of the Agreement No. CER/SR/MDU/25/2003-04/ DT. 27.02.2007. The ld. counsel further drew our attention to the responsibilities of the contractor as exhibited on page 254 of the paper book. The ld. counsel further drew our attention to the fact that after completion of 7 years period, the entire plant has to be handed over to the Board in good working condition. The ld. counsel concluded by saying that the claim of deduction cannot be denied on flimsy ground.
28. Per contra, the ld. D.R. strongly supported the findings of the A.O. It is the say of the ld. D.R. that there is no error in the findings of the ld. CIT(A).
29. We have given a careful consideration to the orders of the authorities below. Before proceeding further, the entire issue revolves around the denial of the claim of deduction by the A.O. heavily relying upon the amended provisions of Section 80IA(4) of the Act. At this juncture, we have to state that the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Katira Construction Ltd. 352 ITR 513 had the occasion to consider whether the explanation is clarificatory and, therefore, has a retrospective effect and the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court held as under:-
"With effect from April 1, 2002, some significant changes were made in the provisions. Such changes were (i) that sub-section (4) of section 80-IA now required the enterprise to carry on the business of developing or operating and maintaining or developing, operating and maintaining any infrastructure facility in contrast to the previous requirement of all three conditions being cumulatively satisfied ; (ii) that the Explanation of the term infrastructure facility was changed to besides others, a road including toll road instead of the hitherto existing 15 ITA Nos. 1905 & 1895/Ahd/2011 and Ors. . A.Ys. 2007-08 & 2008-09 expression road; and (iii) that the requirement of transferring the infrastructural facilities developed by the enterprise to the Central or the State Government or the local authority within the time stipulated in the agreement was done away with. These changes, however, would not alter the situation vis-a-vis the Explanation. The basic requirement of the enterprise carrying on the business of developing or operating and maintain or developing, operating and maintaining infrastructure facility was not done away with. Even as amended with effect from April, 2002, section 80IA(4)could be construed as not including execution of works contract as one of the eligible activities for claiming deduction. In 2007, the Explanation below sub-section (13) of section 80-IA came to be added which clarified that nothing contained in the section shall apply to a person who executes a works contract entered into with the undertaking or enterprise, as the case may be. However, this was not found to be sufficient. With a view to preventing such misuse of the tax holiday under section 80-IA, it was proposed to amend the Explanation to clarify that nothing contained in the section shall apply in relation to a business which is in the nature of a works contract executed by an undertaking. What the Explanation, did was to clarify a statutory provision which was at best possible of a confusion. If that be, so, the Explanation must be seen as one being in the nature of plain and simple Explanation and not either adding or subtracting anything to the existing statutory provision. If the Explanation was purely explanatory in nature and did not mend the existing statutory provisions, the question of levying any tax with retrospective effect would not arise. The Explanation only supplied clarity where confusion was possible in the unamended provision. In that view of the matter, this cannot be seen as a retrospective levy."
30. The assessment before us is 2007-08 & 2008-09, therefore the binding decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat (supra) is directly applicable on the case in hand. As mentioned elsewhere, the initial assessment year is A.Y. 2005-06 16 ITA Nos. 1905 & 1895/Ahd/2011 and Ors. . A.Ys. 2007-08 & 2008-09 and after thorough examination, the claim of deduction was allowed by the Department. In our understanding of the law without disturbing the claim of the initial assessment year, a similar claim cannot be denied in the subsequent assessment years. Considering the facts of the case in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat (supra), we direct the A.O. to allow the claim of deduction of Rs. 3,09,59,258/- u/s. 80IA of the Act. Ground no. 6 is allowed.
ITA No. 1895/Ahd/2011 Revenue's appeal for A.Y. 2007-0831. The only grievance of the revenue is that the ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,54,08,687/- made on account of profit of work contract sales.
32. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked `to justify the claim of deduction u/s. 80IB on work contract sales of Rs. 9,70,53,447/- and High seas sales of Rs.17,34,000/. Assessee filed a detailed reply which did not find any favour with the A.O. who was of the strong belief that the amended provision brought in the statute by the Finance Act 2009 has been given a retrospective effect from 01.04.2000 and, therefore, the deduction is not allowable to a person carrying on such business under a contract awarded by the Government. The A.O. accordingly disallowed the claim of deduction.
33. Assessee carried the matter before the ld. CIT(A) and reiterated its claim of deduction.
34. After considering the facts and the submissions, the ld. CIT(A) found that the Tribunal in assessee's own case has allowed the claim of deduction and found 17 ITA Nos. 1905 & 1895/Ahd/2011 and Ors. . A.Ys. 2007-08 & 2008-09 that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Tribunal in assessee's own case and directed the A.O. to allow the claim of deduction.
35. Before us, the ld. D.R. could not bring any distinguishing decision in favour of the revenue.
36. We have carefully gone through the orders of the authorities below. Since the First Appellate Authority has followed the decision of the Tribunal in assessee's own case, we therefore do not find any error or infirmity in the findings of the ld. CIT(A). Grievance of the revenue is accordingly dismissed.
ITA No. 2210/Ahd/2011 Assessee's appeal for A.Y. 2008-0937. Ground no. 1 is of general in nature and needs no separate adjudication.
38. Grievance raised vide ground no. 2 is identical to the grievance raised vide ground no. 2 in A.Y. 2007-08 (supra). For our detailed discussion therein, ground no. 2 is allowed.
39. Ground no. 3 of the present appeal is identical to the grievance raised in ground no. 3 in A.Y. 2007-08 (supra). For our detailed discussion therein, we direct accordingly. Ground no. 3 is treated as allowed for statistical purpose.
40. Ground no. 4 relates to the re-allocation of expenditure and the grievance is identical to ground no. 4 of A.Y. 2007-08 (supra). For our detailed reasons given therein, we hold accordingly.
18 ITA Nos. 1905 & 1895/Ahd/2011 and Ors.. A.Ys. 2007-08 & 2008-09
41. Grievance raised vide ground no. 5 is identical to the grievance raised vide ground no. 5 in A.Y. 2007-08 (supra). For our detailed discussion therein, ground no. 5 is allowed.
42. Ground no. 6 relates to the disallowance of deduction of Rs. 66,69,840/- u/s. 10AA of the Act.
43. We find that the A.O. has disallowed the claim of exemption by re-allocating the indirect expenditure. The re-allocation of indirect expenditure have been considered by us at length while deciding ground no. 4 in the appeal for A.Y. 2007-08 (supra). For out detailed discussion therein, we direct the A.O. to consider our directions and decide this issue afresh. Ground no. 6 is treated as allowed for statistical purpose.
ITA No. 1990/Ahd/2011 Revenue's appeal for A.Y. 2008-0944. The only grievance of the revenue relates to the deletion of the addition of Rs. 27,96,202/- on account of profit of work contract sales.
45. An identical issue has been considered by us in revenue's appeal for A.Y. 2008- 08 (supra). For the reasons given therein, this ground is dismissed.
Order pronounced in Open Court on 12 - 09- 2017
Sd/- Sd/-
(MAHAVIR PRASAD) (N. K. BILLAIYA)
JUDICIAL MEMBER True Copy ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Ahmedabad: Dated 12/09/2017