M/s Curetech Skincare, Solan V. DCIT, Parwanoo

ITA 238/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5185 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-04-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 06-02-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGHDR

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS. 238 & 239/CHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S CURETECH SKINCARE, VS. THE DCIT, PLOT NO. 33 & 34, PHASE-IV, CIRCLE, BHATOLI KALAN, BADDI, PARWANOO (HP)/ DISTT. SOLAN (HP). PAN NO. AAFFC6027J (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI TEJ MOHAN SINGH RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH,DR DATE OF HEARING : 29.03.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27.04.2017 ORDER PER MS. DIVA SINGH,JM BOTH THESE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WHEREIN THE CORRECTNESS OF THE SEPARATE ORDERS DATED 05.12.2016 OF CIT (APPEAL S), SHIMLA PERTAINING TO 2013-14 AND 2014-15 ASSESSMENT YEARS HAS BEEN ASSAILED ON T HE IDENTICAL GROUNDS. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, IT WAS A COMMON STAND OF THE PARTIES BEFORE THE BENCH THAT THE ISSUE ADDRESSED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS I DENTICAL TO WHAT HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN ITA NO. 798/CHD/2012 IN THE CASE OF HYCRON ELECTRONICS VS ITO. THOUGH THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSES SEE WOULD BE CHALLENGING THE SAME BEFORE HON'BLE HIGH COURT, HOWEVER, AS FAR AS THE PRESENT FORUM IS CONCERNED, ISSUES ARE IDENTICAL. THE RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CA SE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A FIRM ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURING OF PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS . THE ASSESSEE FIRM WAS DOING MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIES FROM VILLAGE JUDDI KALAN, OPP JYOTHI LABORATORIES, BADDI, DISTT. SOLAN. 3. A PERUSAL OF THE AFORESAID DECISION OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF M/S HYCRON ELECTRONICS (SUPRA), IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE I N THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ALSO, 2 HAS ALREADY CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT TO THE EXTENT OF 100% ELIGIBLE PROFIT FOR FIVE YEARS PERIOD FROM 2007-08 TO 2011-12 ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION IN 2012- 13 ASSESSMENT YEAR ALSO WHICH WAS CONSIDERED TO BE 7 TH YEAR. RELYING UPON THE AFORESAID DECISION OF THE ITAT, THE CLAIM WAS REJECTED. IN THE AFOREMENTIONED PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, SINCE THE ISSUE ON FACTS AND LAW AS PER SUBMISSIONS OF THE PA RTIES IS IDENTICAL AND WE FIND THE SUBMISSIONS TO BE CORRECT. ACCORDINGLY, RESPECTFUL LY FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE REJECTED. 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMI SSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27 TH APRIL,2017. SD/- SD/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (DIVA S INGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED 27 TH APRIL, 2017. POONAM COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR ASSTT. REGISTRAR ITAT,CHANDIGARH.