The Jtcit (Asstt) Sr-Ii, Ahmedabad V. M/S Mamta Machinery P Ltd, Ahmedabad

ITA 2424/AHD/2000

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 57137 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 year(s) 2 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-01-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 19-01-2012
• Assessment Year: 1987-1988
• Appeal Filed On: 22-11-2000
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: J P SHAH
• Keywords: Corroborative evidences; Assessment record
• Section: 10

Judgement Text

-1- IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH 'C' BEFORE SHRI D K TYAGI - JM AND SHRI A MOHAN ALANKAMONY - AM ITA NO.2424/AHD/2000 (ASSESSMENT YEAR:-1987-88) JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (ASSESSMENT) SR-2, AHMEDABAD V/S M/S MAMTA MACHINERY PVT. LTD., 53, MADHUBAN, NR. MADALPUR UNDER BRIDGE, ELLIS-BRIDGE, AHMEDABAD PAN: [APPELLANT] [RESPONDENT] ITA NOS.509, 510, 511, 512 & 729/AHD/2005 (ASST. YEARS:-1986-87, 1990-91, 1991-92, 1993-94 & 1992-93) THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX, CIRCLE-4, AHMEDABAD V/S M/S MAMTA MACHINERY PVT. LTD., 5-1-1A, PHASE- II, GIDC, VATVA AHMEDABAD PAN: [APPELLANT] [RESPONDENT] REVENUE BY :- SHRI VINOD TANWANI, SR. DR ASSESSEE BY:- SHRI J P SHAH, AR DATE OF HEARING:- 19-01-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:- 25-01-2012 O R D E R PER D K TYAGI (JM) :- THESE SIX APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AS DETAILED BELOW:- 2 SR. NO. IT APPEAL NO. ASST. YEAR AGAINST ORDER OF CIT(A) DATE OF ORDER OF CIT(A) 1 2424/A/00 1987-88 CIT(A)-IV, AHMEDABAD 31-08-2000 2 509/A/2005 1986-87 CIT(A)-VIII, ABAD 17-11-2004 3 510/A/2005 1990-91 4 511/A/2005 1991-92 5 512/A/2005 1993-94 6 729/A/2005 1992-93 16-12-2004 2 SINCE ISSUE INVOLVED IN ALL THESE APPEALS IS COMM ON, THE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 3 FIRST WE WILL TAKE UP THE APPEALS IN ITA NOS.509, 510, 511 AND 512/AHD/2005 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 1986-87, 1990 -91, 1991-92 AND 1993-94 AS THE SAME HAVE BEEN FILED AGA INST THE CONSOLIDATED ORDER DATED 17-11-2004 PASSED BY THE L EARNED CIT(A)-VIII, AHMEDABAD FOR ALL THE YEARS. THE COMMO N GROUNDS [EXCEPT THE FIGURES] RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THESE APPEALS ARE AS UNDER:- 1 THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN DIRECTING TO ALLOW THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 80 I DISREGARDING THE FACT THAT THE REPORT OF CHARTERED ENGINEER UPON WHICH THE LD. CIT(A) RELIED DOES NOT STATE CATEGORICALLY THAT NON E OF THE MACHINERIES WERE TRANSFERRED TO NEW UNIT. 2 THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF T HE CASE BY ADJUDICATING THE ISSUE WITHOUT DISCOUNTING THE POSS IBILITY THAT 3 EVEN FOR THE ASSEMBLY WORK PERFORMED AT VATVA UNIT, AS CLAIMED BY ASSESSEE COMPANY, OLD MACHINERY TRANSFER RED FROM MUMBAI COULD HAVE BEEN USED. 3 THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF T HE CASE BY DECIDING THE CASE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT GOING THROUGH ALL THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE HON'BLE ITAT W HILE SETTING ASIDE THE CASE. 4 WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN DIRECTING TO ALLOW THE DEDUCTI ON U/S 80I DISREGARDING THE FACT THAT ALMOST WHOLE WORK WAS GO T DONE FROM OUT SIDE ON JOB WORK BASIS AND ASSESSEE SIMPLY ASSE MBLED THE MACHINERY AND IS THEREFORE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTI ON U/S 801. 5 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE DECISION OF THE A.O . 6 IT IS, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD . CIT(A) MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE A.O. MAY BE RESTORED TO T HE ABOVE EXTENT. 4 THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPA NY IS ENGAGED IN ASSEMBLING AND FABRICATION OF MACHINERY FOR INDUSTRIAL PURPOSES. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY CLAIMED D EDUCTION U/S 80I FOR ALL THE YEARS AND THE AO HAD EITHER NOT ALL OWED IT OR HAD RESTRICTED THE ALLOWANCE (PARTICULARLY FOR AY 1991- 92). IT WAS A CASE OF THE AO THAT CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN SECTION 80I(2)(I)(II) ARE NOT SATISFIED. THE ASSESSMENT FOR AY 1986-87 WA S REOPENED / REASSESSED. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, THE REASO NS CITED FOR NON-ALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S 80I ARE REPRODUCED A S UNDER:- 'THE ASSESSEE COMPANY CAME INTO EXISTENCE WITH EFFE CT FROM 17.4.79, I.E. DURING THE P.Y. RELEVANT TO A.Y.80-81 AND STAR TED PRODUCTION DURING THE P.Y. RELEVANT TO A.Y, 81-82. THE MANUFAC TURE ACTIVITIES ARE DONE IN A FACTORY AND MACHINE HIRED OUT FROM P.K, I NDUSTRIES AT ANDHERI, BOMBAY, SUBSEQUENTLY, ASSESSES COMPANY SHI FTED ITS 4 PRODUCTION OPERATIONS FROM BOMBAY TO AHMEDABAD (VAT WA) DURING THE P.Y, RELEVANT TO A.Y. 1985-86 IN A HIRED PUT PR EMISES OF IMPEX ENGINEERS AT VATWA @ RENT OF RS.8000/- P.M. THE ASS ESSEE COMPANY TRANSFERRED MACHINERY WORTH RS.2,53,891/- FROM BOMB AY TO AHMEDABAD DURING THE PY. RELEVANT TO A.Y. 1986-87, VIDE COMPANY'S LETTER DATED 29.11.88. FROM THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS, IT WAS NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD MADE ADDITIONS TO PLANT AND MA CHINERY/BUILDING AT VATVA FROM A.Y.19S5-86 AND ONWARDS FRO THE EXPAN SION OF HIS BUSINESS ACTIVITIES. PROM THE ABOVE, IT WAS VERY CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD SHIFTED ITS EXISTING PRODUCTION UNIT FROM ANDHERI T O VATVA IN A.Y. 1985-86. THUS, THERE WAS NO NEW UNIT WAS IN EXISTEN CE AT VATVA, BUT IT WAS ONLY SHIFTING OF EXISTING UNIT FROM ONE PLACE T O ANOTHER PLACE I.E. FROM ANDHERI TO VATVA. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASS ESSEE COMPANY STARTED ITS PRODUCTIONS DURING THE PY, RELEVANT TO A.Y. 1982-82, I.E. AN INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING WAS ESTABLISHED AND STARTED PRODUCTION ACTIVITIES BEFORE 31.3.81. HENCE, THE CONDITION STIPULATED U/S 801 WAS NOT SATISFIED. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS DISCUSSED ABOVE, FT IS CLEAR T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FULFILLED CONDITIONS NO.(I) AND (II) OF SUB-SEC TION (2) OF SECTION 801. FROM THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IT IS HELD THAT DEDUCTION U/S 801 WAS WRONGLY ALLOWED. THIS DEDUCTI ON IS WITHDRAWN AND INCOME IS TO BE RECOMPUTED ACCORDINGLY'. THE CIT(A) ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND TH EREAFTER THE MATTER WENT BEFORE THE ITAT FOR ALL THE FOUR YEARS AND THE ITAT SET ASIDE THE MATTER BACK TO THE CIT(A) WITH THE FO LLOWING REMARKS:- (I) TO COLLECT THE BILLS, GATE-PASS, VOUCHERS OF TH E NEW MANUFACTURED CIRCULAR LOOMS ETC., AND ALSO VERIFY T HE SAME. (II) TO COLLECT THE TECHNICAL REPORT FROM THE FACTO RY INSPECTORS REGARDING CAPACITY TO PRODUCT THE EXISTING MACHINER Y WHETHER FT CAN BE MANUFACTURED THE CIRCULAR LOOMS O R NOT. (III) TO MAKE A DEEP ENQUIRY REGARDING THE ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY THE PURCHASERS AND DECIDE THE MATTER AFRESH AS P ER LAW.' 5 ACCORDINGLY, THE LEARNED CIT(A) DIRECTED THE AO TO MAKE NECESSARY INQUIRIES AND INVESTIGATION IN VIEW OF TH E ABOVE DIRECTIONS OF THE ITAT. THIS WAS DONE AS PER SECTIO N 250(4) VIDE LETTER DATED 10.9.04. THE AO VIZ. DCIT, CIRCLE-4, S UBMITTED HIS REPORT AS PER LETTER DATED 30.9.2004. A COPY OF THE SAME WAS MADE AVAILABLE TO THE ASSSESSEE'S REPRESENTATIVE FO R COUNTER COMMENTS WHICH HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED VIDE WRITTEN SUB MISSIONS DATED 5.11.2004. 5 AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASS ESSEE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) DECIDED THE ISSUE WITH THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS:- 2 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MATTE BY THE A SSSESSEE'S REPRESENTATIVE SHRI J. P. SHAH, CA AND HIREN D. SHA H, CA WHO ATTENDED BEFORE ME AND HAVE MADE WRITTEN SUBMISSION AS WELL AS DETAILS OF PAPER BOOK ENCLOSING COPIES OF P&L ACCOU NT AND OTHER SUPPORTING EVIDENCES TO SUPPORT THE MANUFACTURING A CTIVITY CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSES. AFTER CAREFUL CONSIDERING THE SAME AND ALSO THE CASE LAWS CITED FOR THE CLAIM U/S 80I, THE POINTS TAKEN UP IN APPEAL FOR ALL THE FOUR YEARS WHICH HAVE BEEN RESTORED BACK ARE AD JUDICATED AS UNDER. 3 AS DIRECTED BY THE HONBLE ITAT, THE AO WAS DIREC TED TO COLLECT THE TECHNICAL REPORT AND SALE BILLS ETC. FO R THE MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIES FOR ALL THE FOUR YEARS. THE AO COLLECTED AND SUBMITTED A TECHNICAL REPORT DATED 20-9-2004 FROM MINESH ENGINE ER. THE AO HAS COMMENTED ON THE SAID REPORT STATING THAT THE ASSES SEE COMPANY IS NOT ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S 80I WITH THE FOLLOWING RE MARKS:- 4 THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A TECHNICAL REPORT DATED 2 0.9.2004 FROM MINESH ENGINEER, CHARTERED ENGINEER AND VALUER . IT IS RELEVANT TO QUOTE FROM PARA-2 OF THE SAID REPORT... ',.......INSTEAD TO START THE PRODUCTION IMMEDIATEL Y, IN PRINCIPLE THE COMPANY DECIDED TO GIVE THE MANUFACTURING OF VA RIOUS PARTIES ON JOB WORK BASIS. THIS PARTS WERE DESIGNED BY THE R & 6 D DEPARTMENT OF THE COMPANY AND DRAWINGS FRO WHICH HAD BEEN ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE COMPANY. MAJOR PART S WHICH WERE MANUFACTURED ON JOB WORK BASIS AT VARIOUS INDU STRIES WERE BROUGHT TO THE STORES OF THIS COMPANY AND BALANCE P ARTS WERE PURCHASED OUTRIGHT FROM THE LOCAL MARKET. AFTER REC EIVING VARIOUS PARTS THE ASSEMBLING ACTIVITY WAS CARRIED O UT AT THE ABOVE SAID PREMISES......' 5 FROM THE REPORT OF THE EXPERT CHARTERED ENGINEER EXTRACTED ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DONE MAJOR PART OF MANUFACTURING ON JOB WORK BASIS. THE ASSESSEE HAS S IMPLY DONE THE ASSEMBLING WORK OF THE MACHINES MANUFACTURED BY OTHERS ON JOB WORK BASIS. THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT T HE MANUFACTURING OF THE MACHINES WERE DONE BY THE ASSE SSEE, WHICH IS VERY CLEAR FROM THE REPORT OF THE CHARTERE D ENGINEER. MOREOVER, AS PER THE DETAILS OF THE MACHINERY ATTAC HED ALONG WITH THE REPORT OF THE CHARTERED ENGINEER, THE MACH INERY'S WHICH ASSESSEE HAD WERE ALL SECOND HAND MACHINERY'S WHICH WOULD DISENTITLED THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S 801. 6 IT IS RELEVANT TO MENTION HERE THAT THE ASSESSEE' S CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S 801 WOULD DEPEND SOLELY AS TO FULFILL MENT OF THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN THAT SECTION. ON VERIFICATI ON OF THE RECORDS IT IS FOUND THAT THE COMPANY CAME INTO EXIS TENCE WITH EFFECT FROM 17.4.1979 I.E. DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO A.Y. 1980-81 AND STARTED PRODUCTION DURING THE PREV IOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO A.Y. 1981-82. THE MANUFACTURING ACTIVIT IES WERE DONE IN A FACTORY AND MACHINERY HIRED OUT FROM P.K. INDUSTRIES AT ANDHERI, BOMBAY. SUBSEQUENTLY, ASSESSEE COMPANY SHIFTED ITS PRODUCTION OPERATION FROM BOMBAY TO AHMEDABAD ( VATVA), DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO &.Y. 1985-96 I N A HIRED OUT PREMISES OF IMPEX ENGINEERS AT VATVA. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TRANSFERRED MACHINERY WORTH RS.243891 FROM BOMBAY T O AHMEDABAD DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO A.Y. 1986-87. FROM THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS MADE ADDITION TO PLANT AND MACHINERY/BU ILDING AT VATVA FROM A.Y. 1985-86 AND ONWARDS FOR THE EXPANSI ON OF ITS BUSINESS ACTIVITY. FROM THE ABOVE IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD SHIFTED THE EXISTING PRODUCTIO N UNIT FROM ANDHERI TO VATVA IN A.Y. 1985-86. THUS THERE WAS NO NEW UNIT IN EXISTENCE AT VATVA. BUT IT WAS ONLY SHIFTING OF EXISTING UNIT FROM ANDHERI TO VATVA. IN THE INSTANT CASE THE COMP ANY HAS 7 STARTED ITS PRODUCTION DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR REL EVANT TO A.Y. 1981-82, THAT IS AN INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING WAS ESTA BLISHED AND STARTED PRODUCTION ACTIVITY BEFORE 31.3.1961. HENCE , THE CONDITIONS STIPULATED U/S 80I ARE NOT SATISFIED IN THE CASE OF THE PRESENT ASSESSEE.' 4 I HAVE PERUSED THE TECHNICAL REPORT REFERRED ABOV E AND ALSO THE COPIES OF BI MS WHICH WERE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO. THE AO HAS STATED THAT SINCE THE MANUFACTURING ACTI VITY I.E. MANUFACTURING OF MACHINES HAVE NOT BEEN DONE BY THE ASSESSEE ITSELF, NO DEDUCTION U/S 80I IS ELIGIBLE. IT IS FURTHER COM MENTED BY HIM IN PARA-6 OF LETTER DATED 3O.9.04 QUOTED ABOVE THAT SI NCE THE EARLIER MACHINERY WAS TRANSFERRED FROM MUMBAI, THE COND ITION LAID DOWN U/S 80I ARE NOT SATISFIED SINCE THIS WAS THE CASE OF SHIFTING OF THE EXISTING UNITS FROM ANDHERI, MUMBAI TO VATVA, AHMED ABAD. 5 THE ASSESSEE'S REPRESENTATIVE SH. J.P. SHAH, CA H AS STRONGLY CHALLENGED THE COMMENTS OF THE AO STATING THAT THE OLD MACHINERY WHICH WAS TRANSFERRED FROM MUMBAI COULD HAVE MANUFA CTURED CIRCULAR LOOMS AND NEW MACHINERY WAS FABRICATED AT VATWA, AHMEDABAD AFTER GETTING VARIOUS COMPONENTS OR PARTS EITHER PARTLY PROCURED THAN OR AFTER GETTING THE SANE MANUFACTURE D FROM LOCAL MANUFACTURES AND THEREAFTER THE MACHINE MODEL NO. T ARPAT CL 45-75 WHICH IS A CIRCULAR LOOM WAS MANUFACTURED DURING TH E RELEVANT YEARS. IT IS STATED THAT THE MACHINERY TRANSFERRED FROM MU MBAI COULD NOT HAVE BEEN USED FOR MANUFACTURE / FABRICATION OF CIRCULAR LOOKS AT AHMEDABAD. AS A MATTER OF FACT, IT IS FOUND THAT TH E OLD MACHINERY WAS DISPOSED OF IN ACCOUNTING YEAR 1988-87. A COPY OF COMPUTATION OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 86-87 SHOWING PROFIT ON SALE OF MAC HINERY OF RS.197,987/- WHICH IS PART OF TOTAL INCOME OF RS.58 8,382 HAS ALSO BEEN SUBMITTED IN THE PAPER BOOK AT PAGE NO.4 THEREOF. T HE SAME ARE VERIFIED WITH REFERENCE TO VARIOUS SCHEDULES OF P & L ACCOUNT ETC. FOR THE RELEVANT YEAR AND THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSE E IN THIS RESPECT IS THEREFORE, FOUND TO BE CORRECT. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE'S REPRESENTATIVE HAVING REFERE NCE TO THE CASE HAS CITED, I AM INCLINED TO HOLD THAT DEDUCTION U/S 80I CANNOT BE DENIED IF AN ASSESSEE GET THE MACHINERY MANUFACTURED OR FABRI CATED FROM OUTSIDERS AND THEREAFTER ASSEMBLING THE MACHINE ITS ELF. THIS VIEW IS SUPPORTED BY THE DECISION OF MUMBAI H.C. IN 68 ITR 325 IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. TATA LOCOMOTIVE & ENGINEERING CO. LTD. SIMILAR VIEW HAS ALSO BEEN TAUTEN BY I TAT, CHANDIGARH 'B' BENCH IN THE CASE OF SONG BHARAT PEDALS INDIA VS. ITO, 89 TTJ 492, IN WHICH T HE DECISION OF 8 MUMBAI H.C. HAS ALSO REFERRED AND RELIED UPON. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTUAL AND LEGAL POSITION, IT IS HELD THAT THE CLA IM U/S 80I TO THE ASSESSES CO. IS ELIGIBLE HEAVING REFERENCE TO THE M ANUFACTURING ACTIVITY CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE RELEVANT YEA RS, FOR WHICH SUPPORTING PURCHASE OF RAW MATERIALS AND MANUFACTUR ING HAVE BEEN ADDUCED BEFORE ME WHICH ARE REFLECTED IN THE RELEVA NT P & L ACCOUNTS. IN PARTICULAR, IT WOULD BE RELEVANT TO PLACE ON REC ORD THAT AS PER SCHEDULE-XIII OF P & L ACCOUNT ENDING 31.3.86 MATER IAL CONSUMED HAVE BEEN SHOWN AT RS.7912430/- AND MANUFACTURING E XPENSES HAVE BEEN SHOWN AT RS.489799 WHICH ARE ON ACCOUNT OF VAR IOUS COMPONENTS PURCHASED / FABRICATED BY THE ASSESSEE C O. EITHER THROUGH ITSELF OR THROUGH OTTERS. THE FINAL PRODUCT HAVE BE EN MANUFACTURED BY THE ASSESSEE CO. SIMILAR FACTUAL POSITION IS VERIFI ED WITH OTHER ASSESSMENT YEARS. THE AO IS ACCORDINGLY DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE CLAIM U/S 80I SUBJECT TO THE REMARKS THAT INCOME WHICH HA S BEEN EXCLUDED AS PER PARA 4, PAGE-4 OF ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR AY 91-92 VIZ.: (1) MISC. INCOME : RS. 19,500 (2) INTEREST EARNED : RS. 35,549 (3) PROFIT ON SALE OF ASSETS : RS.1,05,855 (4) PACKING CHARGES : RS.1,43,921 (5) SALES TAX REFUND : RS. 4,803 (6) EXCISE REFUND : RS.3,10,704 THE ABOVE IS UPHELD AS NOT INCOME DERIVED FROM IND USTRIAL UNDERTAKING AND THE SAME IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80I IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF STERLING FOODS VS. CIT REPORTED IN 237 ITR 479. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO EXCL UDE SIMILAR INCOMES WHILE COMPUTING ELIGIBLE DEDUCTION U/S 80I FOR AY 86-87, 90- 91 AND 93-94. 5 AGGRIEVED BY THIS ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A), NO W THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. SINCE, AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LEARNED DR THOUGH SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF AO BUT DID NOT CONTROVERT THE FINDING OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) THAT T HE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80I OF THE ACT, WE F EEL NO NEED TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT( A) AND THE SAME IS HEREBY UPHELD. THEREFORE, THE REVENUES APP EALS IN ITA 9 NOS.509, 510, 511 AND 512/AHD/2005 FOR ASSESSMENT Y EARS 1986- 87, 1990-91, 1991-92 AND 1993-94 ARE DISMISSED. 6 NOW, COMING TO THE REVENUES APPEALS FOR ASSESSME NT YEARS 1987-88 AND 1992-93 IN ITA NO.2424/AHD/2000 A ND 729/AHD/2005, WE FIND THAT SIMILAR GROUNDS HAVE BEE N RAISED BY THE REVENUE. SINCE THE FACTS INVOLVED IN THESE APPE ALS ARE SIMILAR AS IN THOSE APPEALS FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 1986-87, 1 990-91, 1991-92 AND 1993-94, FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID ORDER, WE UPHOLD THE ORDERS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) FOR ASSESSMENT YEA RS 1987-88 AND 1992-93 ALSO. 7 IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVEN UE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT TODAY ON 25-01-2012 SD/- SD/- (A MOHAN ALANKAMONY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (D K TYAGI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE : 25-01-2012 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. M/S MAMTA MACHINERY PVT. LTD., 53, MADHUBAN, NR. MADALPUR UNDER BRIDGE, ELLIS-BRIDGE, AHMEDABAD M/S MAMTA MACHINERY PVT. LTD., 5-1-1A, PHASE-II, GI DC, VATVA AHMEDABAD 2. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (ASSESSMENT) SR -2, 10 AHMEDABAD THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-4, AHMEDABAD 3. CIT CONCERNED 4. CIT(A)-IV / VIII, AHMEDABAD 5. DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD BENCH-C, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER DEPUTY REGISTRAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, AHMEDABAD