M/s E.G. Pharmaceuticals, Solan V. DCIT, Circle, Parwanoo

ITA 1168/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6631 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-11-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 24-07-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES A, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1168/CHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 M/S E.G. PHARMACEUTICALS, VS. THE DCIT, VILL MANDHALA, TEHSIL KAUSAULI, CIRCLE - PARWANOO DISTT.SOLAN H.P. PAN NO.AACFE1835H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. MANOJ KUMAR RESPONDENT BY : SMT. CHANDERKANTA DATE OF HEARING : 21.11.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21.11.2017 ORDER PER SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESS EE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS CIT(A)], SHIMLA DATED 23.05.2017 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013- 14. 2. COMING TO THE MERITS OF THE CASE, BOTH THE LD. R EPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES HAVE FAIRLY AGREED THAT THE ISSUE AD DRESSED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS IDENTICAL TO WHAT HAS BEEN DECIDE D BY THE CO- 2 ORDINATE BENCH IN ITA NO. 798/CHD/2012 IN THE CASE OF HYCRON ELECTRONICS VS ITO. 3. THE RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSE SSEE FIRM DERIVES INCOME FROM MANUFACTURING OF TABLETS, CAPSULES, SYR UPS ETC. THE ASSESSEE FIRM STARTED ITS MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY ON 25.06.2007 AND THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IC OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) WAS ASSES SMENT YEAR 2008- 09. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDE R SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT TO THE EXTENT OF 100% ELIGIBLE PROFIT FOR F IVE YEARS PERIOD FROM ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 TO 20-12-13. THE ASS ESSEE HAD AGAIN CLAIMED 100% DEDUCTION AGAINST ELIGIBLE PROFIT IN T HE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14, WHICH WAS 6 TH YEAR OF PRODUCTION BY CLAIMING SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION OF THE UNIT IN ASSES SMENT YEAR 2012- 13. RELYING UPON THE AFORESAID DECISION OF THE ITA T IN THE CASE OF HYCRON ELECTRONICS (SUPRA), THE CLAIM WAS REJECTED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. IN THE AFOREMENTIONED PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, SINCE THE ISSUE ON FACTS AND LAW IS IDENTICAL AND W E FIND THE SUBMISSIONS TO BE CORRECT; ACCORDINGLY, RESPECTFULL Y FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS REJECTED. 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21.11.2017 SD/- SD/- (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 21.11.2017 RKK 3 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR