BLUPLAST INDUSTRIES LTD ( FORMERLY THERMOPLAST INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI V. ACIT RG 9(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3428/MUM/2009

• Counselvise Citation: 342819914 RSA 2009
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-09-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Next Hearing Date: 19-09-2011
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 26-05-2009
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANJIV DUTT
• Assessee Lawyers: SANJAY R PARIKH
• Section: 80HHC; 80IB

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL I BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AN D SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 3428/MUM./2009 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 ) BLUEPLAST INDUSTRIES LTD. (FORMERLY THERMOPLAST INDUSTRIES P. LTD.) 113-114, VIVEK INDUSTRIAL ESTATE NEAR LITOLIER, USWALA ROAD, CAMA ESTATE GOREGAON (E), MUMBAI 400 063 PAN AABCT0420F .. APPELLANT V/S ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-9(1), AAYAKAR BHAVAN 101, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI 400 020 .... RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : MR. SANJAY R. PARIKH REVENUE BY : MR. SANJIV DUTT DATE OF HEARING 19.09.2011 DATE OF ORDER 30.09.2011 O R D E R PER J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, A.M. THIS APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE, IS DIRECTED AGAINST IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 6 TH MARCH 2009, PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)-I X, MUMBAI, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. THERE ARE TWO GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL. 2. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES, WE FIND THAT GROUND NO.1, WHICH IS ON THE ISSUE AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION BLUEPLAST INDUSTRIES LTD. ITA NO.3428/M/2009 2 80IB OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT THE ACT ), ON INTEREST INCOME OF ` 2,03,378, IS COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND IN F AVOUR OF THE REVENUE BY THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN LIBERTY IN DIA V/S ITO, (2009) 317 ITR 0218 (SC). RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, GRO UND NO.1 IS DISMISSED. 3. COMING TO GROUND NO.2, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTI ONS BOTH UNDER SECTION 80IB AS WELL AS UNDER SECTION 80HHC OF THE ACT. 4. THE ISSUE BEFORE US IS THE INTERPRETATION OF SECTIO N 80IB(9). THE PRINCIPLES OF COMPUTING RELIEF IN SUCH CASES, HAVE BEEN LAID DOWN Y THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN ASSOCIATED CAP SULES P. LTD. V/S DCIT, (2011) 332 ITR 42 (BOM.). AS THESE PROPOSITIONS WER E NOT AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF ADJUDICATION OF THE CLAIM BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WE RESTORE THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DEN OVO ADJUDICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 5. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH SEPTEMBER 2011 SD/- VIJAY PAL RAO JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/- J. SUDHAKAR REDDY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 30 TH SEPTEMBER 2011 COPY TO : (1) THE ASSESSEE; (2) THE RESPONDENT; (3) THE CIT(A), MUMBAI, CONCERNED; (4) THE CIT, MUMBAI CITY CONCERNED; (5) THE DR, I BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI. TRUE COPY BY ORDER PRADEEP J. CHOWDHURY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI