The ITO, Ward-1, Vapi V. Shri Ashok V.Parmar, Vapi

ITA 1623/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 162320514 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-06-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 20-05-2014
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 14-06-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P L KUREEL
• Assessee Lawyers: RASESH SHAH
• Keywords: Depreciation
• Section: 80IB

Judgement Text

, , , , B, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT AHMEDABAD, B BENCH . .. . . .. . , !' !' !' !', , , , #$ #$ #$ #$ # ## #. .. .# ## #. . . . % % % %, , , , &' ( & ' &' ( & ' &' ( & ' &' ( & ' BEFORE S/SHRI G.C. GUPTA, VICE-PRESIDENT AND N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA NO.1623/AHD/2011 [ASSTT.YEAR : 2006-2007] ITO, VAPI WARD-1 VAPI. /VS. ASHOK V. PARMAR PROP. P & P ALLIED PROCESSING INDUSTRIES 301, ROYAL TWIN, DAMAN ROAD CHALA, VAPI. PAN : ACCPP 3258 K ( (( (*+ *+ *+ *+ / APPELLANT) ( (( (,-*+ ,-*+ ,-*+ ,-*+ / RESPONDENT) ( . / &/ REVENUE BY : SHRI P.L. KUREEL, SR.DR 12 . / &/ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI RASESH SHAH 3 . 24'/ DATE OF HEARING : 20 TH MAY, 2014 567 . 24'/ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06-06-2014 &8 / O R D E R PER G.C. GUPTA, VICE-PRESIDENT: THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-2007 IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 2. THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ARE AS UNDER: ITA NO.1623/AHD/2011 -2- 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN TREATING THE TRADING ACTIVIT Y OF THE ASSESSEE AS MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY AND NOT APPRECIATING THE FIN DING DISCUSSED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN TREATING THE TRADING ACTIVIT Y OF THE ASSESSEE AS MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY AND OBSERVING THAT THE ASSES SEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/2. 80IB OF THE ACT, AMOUNTING TO RS.9,6 2,650/-. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN TREATING THE TRADING ACTIVIT Y OF THE ASSESSEE AS MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY AND ALLOWING MANUFACTURING E XPENSES AND DEPRECIATION CLAIMED AMOUNTING TO RS.2,37,547/- AND RS.12,612/- RESPECTIVELY. 2. THE LEARNED DR HAS RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE AO . THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IDENTICAL I SSUE WAS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE ITAT, AHMEDABAD IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDIN G ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 IN ITA NO.2410/AHD/2009 ORDER DATED 13.11.2 013. 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND THE CIT(A). WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB AND WHETHER THE TRA DING ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE AMOUNTS TO MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY, IS COVE RED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE WITH THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE ITAT, AHMEDABAD IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE IMMEDIATEL Y PRECEDING ASSTT.YEAR 2005-06 ORDER DATED 13.11.2013 (SUPRA), WHEREIN IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. WE, B EING IN AGREEMENT WITH THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASST.YEAR 2005-06, DECIDE THE ISSUE BEFORE US IN FA VOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND ITA NO.1623/AHD/2011 -3- THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS CONFIRMED AND THE GROUND S OF THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONE D HEREINABOVE. SD/- SD/- ( # ## #. .. .# ## #. . . . % % % % /N.S.SAINI) &' ( &' ( &' ( &' ( /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( . .. . . .. . /G.C. GUPTA) !' !' !' !' /VICE-PRESIDENT C OPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1) : APPELLANT 2) : RESPONDENT 3) : CIT(A) 4) : CIT CONCERNED 5) : DR, ITAT. BY ORDER DR/AR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD