MNC HERS, New Delhi V. ACIT, Circle- 35(1), New Delhi

ITA 300/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9820 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 7 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-09-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 15-01-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.300/Del/2019 Assessment Year: 2012-13 MNC HERS A-1/118,Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi-110029 PAN No.AANFM1617J Vs ACIT Circle – 35 (1) New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant Ms. Gunjan Jain, CA Respondent Sh. Jeetender Chand, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 06/09/2022 Date of Pronouncement: 06/09/2022 ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, AM: This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the CIT(A)-12, New Delhi dated 11.10.2018 for A.Y.2012-13. 2. The grievance of the assessee read as under :- 2 3. At the very outset the counsel for the assessee stated that under the instructions she is not pressing ground No.1 to 4, therefore, grounds No. 1 to 4 are dismissed as not pressed. 4. The only ground survives for our adjudication relates to the restriction of the of deduction u/s. 80 IC of the Act to 25% as 3 against the claim of 100%. 5. The entire quarrel relates to the fact that the assessee claimed 100% deduction u/s. 80 IC of the Act on the ground that there was substantial expansion under taken by the assessee which according to the amended provision make the assessee an eligible assessee for the claim of deduction @ 100%. 6. The entire claim of the assessee was rejected by the AO who was of the firm belief that the assessee is only entitled for the claim of deduction @ 25% drawing support from the decision of the Tribunal Chandigarh Bench in the case of Hycron Electronics in ITA No.798/CHD/2012 order dated 27.05.2015. 7. When the matter was agitated before the CIT(A) the CIT(A) followed the interpretation given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Classic Binding Industries in Civil Appeal No.7208 of 2018. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal. 8. The impugned quarrel has now been well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Aarham Softronics Vs DCIT 102 taxmann.com 343 in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while deciding the quarrel has considered the judgment given in the case of Classic Binding Industries (supra) and Mahabir Industries 94 taxmann.com 260. The relevant findings read as under :- 4 9. Respectfully following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme court we direct the AO to allow the claim of deduction u/s. 80 IC of the Act @ 100%. The appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. 5 10. Decision announced in the open court on 06.09.2022. Sd/- Sd/- (KUL BHARAT) (N. K. BILLAIYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER *NEHA, Sr. Private Secretary* Date:- .09.2022 Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI Date of dictation 06.09.2022 Date on which the typed draft is placed before the dictating Member 06.09.2022 Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Other member 06.09.2022 Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS 06.09.2022 Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for Pronouncement 06.09.2022 Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr. PS/ PS 06.09.2022 Date on which the final order is uploaded on the website of ITAT 06.09.2022 Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk 06.09.2022 Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk. The date on which file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order Date of dispatch of the Order