Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

i) "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in holding that benefit of deduction under section 80IC @ 100% of profit was not available to units set up after 7.1.2003, on undertaking substantial expansion from the year of completion of substantial expansion?

ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in holding that units set up after 7.1.2003 would not be entitled to enlarged deduction under section 80IC of the Act @ 100% of profit, even on undertaking substantial expansion within the specified period?

iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in disallowing the benefit of substantial expansion under Section 80IC to the units that came into existence after 7.1.2003 by stating that initial assessment year can't be re-fixed for such units?

2 of 15

iv) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in not following the decision of the coordinate benches of the Tribunal, without referring the matter to the larger bench?

3. A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in ITA No. 332 of 2015 may be noticed. The appellant-assessee filed return of income on 23.9.2011 for the assessment year 2011-12 declaring an income of ` 92,883/- after claiming deduction under Section 80IC of the Act. The assessee was asked to explain the computation of the deduction under Section 80IC of the Act at the rate of 100% for the financial year 2010-11 relevant to the assessment year 2011-

12. The assessee produced bills showing the purchase of plant and machinery amounting to ` 1,63,63,460/- which was more than 50% of the total book value of plant and machinery contending that the unit was eligible for 100% deduction under Section 80IC of the Act as it had undertaken substantial expansion in the financial year 2010-11. It was reiterated by the assessee that as per the provisions of Section 80IC(2)(b) of the Act, it was eligible for benefit of 100% deduction on the substantial expansion undertaken from 7.1.2003 to 1.4.2012 since the expansion was undertaken in the financial year 2010-11 within the time period prescribed under Section 80IC(2)(b) of the Act. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim under Section 80IC of the Act vide order dated 29.01.2014, 3 of 15 Annexure A.1, holding that the claim for 100% deduction was not permissible under Section 80IC of the Act and the same was to be restricted only to the extent of 25%. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. Vide order dated 22.09.2014, Annexure A.2, the CIT(A) held that the deduction at 100% of profits is available for only five assessment years including the initial assessment year and, thereafter, the assessee was eligible for deduction to the extent of 25% as the definition of initial assessment year provided under section 80IC(8)(v) of the Act would be restricted to only one initial assessment year. Relying upon the notification of the Central Excise Department, the CIT(A) held that the assessee was eligible for deduction under Section 80IC of the Act only to the extent of 25% for the assessment year in question. Still not satisfied, the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal. Vide order dated 27.05.2015, Annexure A.3, the Tribunal held that the benefit of substantial expansion @ 100% deduction would not be granted to the existing units where the assessee had already availed the period of full deduction @ 100% in the earlier five years and in such a situation, the benefit @ 25% deduction would be available for the remaining period where the substantial expansion had taken place after 07.1.2003 and before 01.04.2012.Hence the instant appeals.