Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3814 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
CRN Number
Duration Of Justice
6 year(s) 3 month(s) 5 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
23-08-2022
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Dismissed
Bench Allotted
D
Assessment Year
2011-2012
Appeal Filed On
18-05-2016
Judgement Text
आयकर य कर , हमदाबाद याय ‘ड ’ हमदाबाद। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. AY Appellant Respondent 3507/Mum/2016 2011-12 Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd., (Erstwhile M/s. Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries), Acme Plaza Andheri-Kurla Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400 059 PAN: AATFS 9584 Q JCIT, 20(3), Mumbai Present Jurisdiction JCIT, 25(1), Mumbai 4096/Mum/2016 2011-12 The ACIT, 25(1), Mumbai M/s. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Mumbai PAN: AATFS 9584 Q 2595/Mum/2018 2012-13 M/s. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Mumbai PAN: AATFS 9584 Q ACIT, 25(1), Mumbai Present jurisdiction DCIT, 2(1)(1), Vadodara 1466/Ahd/2018 2012-13 DCIT, Cir-2(1)(1), Baroda M/s. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Mumbai PAN: AATFS 9584 Q 2597/Mum/2018 2013-14 Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd., (Erstwhile M/s. Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries) PAN: AATFS 9584 Q ACIT, 25(1), Mumbai Present jurisdiction DCIT, 2(1)(1), Vadodara 1467/Ahd/2018 2013-14 DCIT, Cir-2(1)(1), Baroda M/s. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Mumbai PAN: AATFS 9584 Q 3980/Mum/2017 2012-13 M/s. Sun Pharma Sikkim (now merged with Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd.) PAN : ABNFS 8922 K ACIT, 25(1), Mumbai Present jurisdiction DCIT, 2(1)(1), Vadodara 1397/Ahd/2017 2012-13 DCIT, Cir-2(1)(1), Baroda M/s. Sun Pharma Sikkim (now merged with Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd.) PAN : ABNFS 8922 K 2596/Mum/2018 2013-14 M/s. Sun Pharma Sikkim (now merged with Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd.) PAN : ABNFS 8922 K ACIT, 25(1), Mumbai Present jurisdiction DCIT, 2(1)(1), Vadodara 1468/Ahd/2018 2013-14 DCIT, Cir-2(1)(1), Baroda M/s. Sun Pharma Sikkim (now merged with Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd.) PAN : ABNFS 8922 K Assessee by : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate, Shri Parin Shah, AR & Shri Bandish Soparkar, AR Revenue by : Shri Mohd Usman, CIT-DR Group Appeals – Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd (Erstwhile M/s. Sun Pharma Sikkim) AY : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 2 स ु नवाई ा /Date of Hearing : 10&17/06/2022 घोषणा ा /Date of Pronouncement: 24/08/2022 आदेश/O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, AM : These are the set of cross appeals filed by the assessee and revenue respectively against the separate orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-37, Mumbai [“CIT(A)” in short]. Since these appeals involve some common issues, these were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. ITA No.3980/Mum/2017 an appeal by the Assessee (Sun Pharma Sikkim) – A.Y. 2012-13 1. The grounds of appeal raised by assessee are as under: “1. Re: Disallowance of deduction u/s 80IE(6) r.w.s. 80IA(10) in respect of alleged price difference Rs.2,13,425/- on purchase from Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited (SPIL) & Sun Pharmaceutical Industries (SPI) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT (A) erred in upholding the invoking of the provisions of S.80IE(6) r.w.s. 80IA (10) and thereby upholding the disallowance of Rs.2,13,425/- on account of purchase of materials by the Appellant from SPIL & SPI. 2. Re: Assessing the scrap sale, interest & other income under the head Income from other sources' Rs. 14,54,919/-. (a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT (A) erred in upholding the assessment of interest on bank F.D., interest on loan to employees and other income under the head 'Income from other sources' instead of assessing the same under the head 'Profits and gains of business'. (b) The learned CIT (A) also erred in not appreciating that all the above receipts/incomes are arising from business activities and hence derived from the business of industrial undertaking.” 2. The first issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowances of deduction under section 80IA(10) of the Act for Rs. 2,13,425/- after invoking the provision of section 80IE(6) of the Act. Group Appeals – Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd (Erstwhile M/s. Sun Pharma Sikkim) AY : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 3 2.1 At the outset we note that the learned AR for the assessee before us submitted that he has been instructed by the assessee not to press the issue due to smallness of amount involved in dispute. Hence, the ground raised by the assessee is dismissed as not pressed. 3. The next issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the AO by treating the sale of scrap, interest and other income aggregating to Rs. 14,54,919/- as income from other sources. 3.1 The facts of the case are that the assessee in the present case was a partnership during the relevant time and engaged in the business of manufacturing of pharmaceutical products. The assessee is an eligible undertaking under section 80IA/80IE of the Act. The AO during the assessment proceeding found that the profit eligible for deduction under section 80IA/80IE of the Act claimed by the assessee included income of Rs. 14,54,919/- accrued on account of sale of scrap, interest and other income which are not arising from the business activity of the undertaking. As such, the same are taxable under the head income from other sources. Thus, the AO excluded the same from the computation of deduction u/s 80IA/80IE of the Act. 3.2 On appeal by the assessee, the learned CIT(A) also confirmed the exclusion of impugned amount by following the order of his predecessor in the own case of the assessee for AY 2011-12. 3.3 Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 3.4 The learned AR for the assessee before us filed paper a book running from pages 1 to 238 and submitted the issue on hand is covered by common order of the coordinate bench of this tribunal in own case of the assessee for A.Y. 2010-11 and 2011-12 bearing ITA Nos. 3377 & 215/Mum/2017. Group Appeals – Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd (Erstwhile M/s. Sun Pharma Sikkim) AY : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 4 3.5 On the other hand, the learned DR before us vehemently supported the stand of the authorities below by reiterating the findings contained in the respective orders which we have already adverted to in the preceding paragraph. Therefore we are not repeating the same for the sake of brevity. 4. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. At the outset, we find that issue on hand is covered by order of the coordinate bench of this tribunal in the own case of the assessee for A.Y. 2010-11 and 2011-12 in ITA Nos. 3377 & 215/Mum/2017, where the bench vide order dated 16 th May 2019 held as under: 8. In ground no.2 (Asstt. Year 2010-11), the assessee has pleaded that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in excluding the amount representing scrap sale from eligible profit for grant of exemption under section 80IE. The ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that a sum of Rs.8,59,701/- was upheld by the ld.CIT(A) for exclusion from the eligible profits. Such amount represented interest from bank on fixed deposits, interest of loan to employees and other income, which are assessable under the head income from other sources, and therefore, not eligible for grant of deduction under section 80IE. He pointed out that out of the amount of Rs.8,59,701/- a sum of Rs.7,08,144/- represent scrap sale. Break up of this amount has been noted by the CIT(A) on page no.46 of the impugned order. She drew our attention towards page no.46 where the ld.CIT(A) has noticed the following details: Details of Other Income Amount (Rs.) Interest - received from bank F.D. 1,42,269/- Interest - received on loan to employees 1,8087- Scrap sale 7,08,144/- Miscellaneous Income 7,4807- Total 8,59,701/- 9. On the strength of the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Nirma Ltd., 367 ITR 12 he contended that scrap sale has a direct nexus with the business of the assessee. It is a by-product and this could not be assessed as income from other sources. As far as other grounds are concerned, he did not dispute for their exclusion. The ld.DR on the other hand relied upon the order of the ld.CIT(A). 10. On due consideration of the above facts, we are of the view that Hon’ble Court has held that scrap sale will be eligible for grant of deduction under section 80IA. Conditions for inclusion or exclusion of such items for the purpose of deduction under section 80IA or 80IE are identical. If an item whose sale was linked with the business of the assessee, and cannot be assessed as an income from other sources, then that receipt deserves to be included in the eligible profit. Respectfully following judgment of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, we allow this ground of appeal partly, and direct the AO to include a sum of Rs.7,08,144/- in the eligible profit for grant of deduction under section 80IE of the Act. Group Appeals – Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd (Erstwhile M/s. Sun Pharma Sikkim) AY : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 5 This direction is subject to our decision on the ground of appeal of the Revenue i.e. whether the assessee is entitled for any deduction under section 80IE. In view of the above discussion this ground of appeal is partly allowed. 4.1 Before us, no material has been placed on record either by the Revenue or by the learned AR for the assessee to demonstrate that the decision of Tribunal as discussed above has been set aside/stayed or overruled by the Higher Judicial Authorities. Before us, no material was placed on record to point out any distinguishing feature in the facts of the case for the year under consideration and that of earlier year nor has placed any contrary binding decision in its support. Thus, respectfully following the order this tribunal in the own case of assessee, we set aside the finding of the learned CIT(A) to the extent of amount of exclusion of income on account of scrap sale whereas we uphold the finding of the learned CIT(A). With regard to the exclusion of interest and other income as discussed above, we hold that such income is not eligible for deduction under section 80-IE of the Act. Thus, the ground of appeal raised by the Assessee is hereby partly allowed. 5. In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed ITA No. 1397/AHD/2017 an appeal by the Revenue for the A.Y. 2012- 13(Sun Pharma Sikkim) 6. The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal: “I(a) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) has erred in allowing the assessee's ground on disallowance of deduction u/s 80IE of Rs.13,61,50,69,980/- without appreciating the fact that the assessee firm was formed by the splitting up and reconstruction of the existing business of SPI and the condition that old / used machinery is less than 20% of the stipulated limit has not been fulfilled by the assessee." I(b) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. C.I.T. (A) erred in holding that rejection of books of accounts in this case is not legally tenable and hence rejection of books of accounts by the A.O could not be upheld without appreciating that as per the provision of section 145((3) of the Act, it is not mandatory for the A.O. to make assessment in the manner prescribed in section 144 of the Act. I(c) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. C.I.T. (A) erred in not. upholding the A.O's action of rejection books of accounts without appreciating that the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings did not furnish the details called for, and hence considering the facts of the case, the A.O. correctly rejected the books of accounts of the assessee and recorded satisfaction note in the assessment order. Group Appeals – Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd (Erstwhile M/s. Sun Pharma Sikkim) AY : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 6 II(a) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. C.I.T. (A) erred in holding that the claim of the appellant in respect of deduction u/s. 80IE of the Act is within the purview of the provisions of the Act and the same is allowable without appreciating that in the absence of proper details and bills, it could not be ascertained as to whether plant and machinery were new and not used earlier, and without appreciating that that plant and machinery transferred by Sun Pharma Industries to Sun Pharma Sikkim was used by Sun Pharma Industries prior to put to use by Sun Pharma Sikkim and hence such plant and machinery could not be regarded as new plant and machinery. II(b) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. C.I.T. (A) erred in holding that the claim of the appellant in respect of deduction u/s. 80IE of the Act is within the purview of the provisions of the Act and the same is allowable without appreciating that mere submission of journal entries generated in computer cannot be treated as authentic document for having purchased plant and machinery and accordingly the A.O. had clearly established that the assessee firm i.e. M/s. Sun Pharma Sikkim was constituted by reconstruction of existing business of M/s. Sun Pharma Industries. II(c) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. C.I.T. (A) erred in holding that the claim of the appellant in respect of deduction u/s. 80IE of the Act is within the purview of the provisions of the Act without appreciating that the assessee could not substantiate its claim with authenticable and reliable documents and failed in establishing that it had satisfied all the conditions laid down in section 80IE, and accordingly the A.O. had correctly disallowed deduction u/s. 80IE of Rs.13,61,50,69,980/- II(d) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. C.I.T. (A) erred in holding that the claim of the appellant in respect of deduction u/s. 80IE of the Act is within the purview of the provisions of the Act without appreciating the A.O's finding on the issue of period of use & depreciation of plant and machinery used by Sun Pharma Industries & M/s. Sun Pharma Sikkim. III(a) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. C.I.T.(A) erred in deleting, the disallowance of deduction u/s 80IE(6) r.w.s. 80IA(10) on apportionment of selling and distribution expenses of Rs.182,57,00,000/- incurred by the working partner without appreciating the fact that all the sales and distribution expenses were debited to SPIL and no allocation was made to SPI and SPS units as has been revealed during the proceedings of survey action u/s. 133A." III(b) On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. C.I.T. (A) erred in deleting the disallowance of deduction u/s. 80IE In respect of selling and distribution expenses without appreciating the A.O's finding on supplementary partnership deed and without appreciating that that selling and distribution expenses cannot be considered in conjunction with remuneration and such charging of remuneration was not accordance with the spirit of section 40(b) of the Act. IV(a) On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. C.l.T. (A) erred in deleting the disallowance of deduction u/s 80IE(6) r.w.s. 80IA(10) on apportionment of research and development expenses of Rs.30,40,000/- incurred by the working partner without appreciating the fact that expenditure related to R&D was debited only in the hands of SPIL but no allocation was made to SPI and SPS units as has been revealed during the proceedings of survey action u/s 133A and the working of allocation of R&D activity on the basis of turnover in the ratio of 3:1 is justifiable and reasonable. IV(b) On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. C.l.T. (A) erred in deleting the disallowance of deduction u/s 80IE(6) r.w.s. 80IA(10) in respect of research and development expenses without appreciating that R & D work require specialized skill and knowledge, and consequently payment towards R & D activity cannot be termed as remuneration but would be termed as professional payment Group Appeals – Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd (Erstwhile M/s. Sun Pharma Sikkim) AY : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 7 V(a) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of deduction u/s 80IE(6) r.w.s. 80IA(10) on apportionment of royalty expenses of Rs.139,42,00,000/- without appreciating the fact that the assessee was using trademarks, brands and logo of SPIL for which neither any fee or royalty is charged and hence disallowance made @ 8% of sales (as in SPI) adopted by the Assessing Officer is justifiable and reasonable. V(b) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in erred in deleting the disallowance of deduction u/s 80IE(6) r.w.s. 80IA(10) on apportionment of royalty expenses without appreciating that the assessee in the guise of payment in the nature of remuneration for technical services of the nature of royalty adopted device to inflate its non taxable income as is evident from the fact that assessee itself had admitted that it had included compensation for use of trademark, brand name etc as remuneration and that compensation could not be equated with remuneration. VI(a) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law The learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of deduction u/s 80IE(6) r.w.s. 80IA(10) on apportionment of management fees of Rs.87,14,00,000/- without appreciating the fact that the affairs of the assessee were managed by SPIL, the working partner, and nothing is paid or charged by SPIL and hence disallowance made @ 5% of turnover adopted by the Assessing Officer is justifiable and reasonable. VI(b) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of deduction u/s 80IE(6) r.w.s. 80IA(10) on apportionment of management fees - without appreciating that the provision of the Supplementary Deed of partners if at all, applicable can be only from a date on or after 15th March, 2012, The assessee can not correct its mistakes or undone the anomaly by creating a retrospective charge by a written or otherwise instrument. Such type of the legal and binding written instruments or acts or rules at best can be made by a sovereign Parliaments or the Judiciary. The assessee has simply made a supplementary deed of partnership and tried to give the retrospective effect to its acts of omission and commission. VII(a) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of deduction u/s 80IE(6) r.w.s. 80IA(10) on remuneration to working partner of Rs. 86,63,97,628/- without appreciating the fact that the assessee had claimed remuneration paid to SPIL on the basis of supplementary deed of partnership dated 15-03-2012 and the same was not allowable in light of the provisions of section 40(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. VII(b) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of deduction u/s 80IE(6) r.w.s. 80IA(10) on remuneration to working partner of Rs. 86,63,97,628/- without appreciating the A.O's finding in the assessment order particularly with regard to assessee's reliance on supplementary partnership deed for inflating its profit for claiming higher deduction u/s. 80IE(6) r.w.s. 80IA(10) of the Act 7. The issue raise by the Revenue vide ground Nos. I(a) and II(a) to II(d) are that the learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessee is eligible for deduction under section 80IE of the Act. 7.1 The assessee during the year under consideration claimed deduction of 100% of gross profit amounting to Rs. 1361,50,69,980/- under section 80IE of the Group Appeals – Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd (Erstwhile M/s. Sun Pharma Sikkim) AY : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 8 Act. However the AO following the finding of his predecessor for the A.Y. 2010-11 in the own case of the assessee held that the assessee firm came into existence by splitting of an existing business of Sun Pharma Industries (SPI), thus it violates the condition prescribed under sub-section 3 to section 80IE of the Act. Therefore, the AO held that the assessee is not eligible for deduction u/s 80IE of the Act and disallowed the claim of the deduction. 7.2 On appeal by the assessee, the learned CIT (A) allowed the appeal of the assessee by following the finding of his predecessor for the A.Y. 2010-11 and 2011-12 in own case of the assessee. 7.3 Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us. 7.4 The learned DR before us contended that the assessee by manipulating its accounts is showing high amount of profit as the same is eligible for deduction and diverting its expenses to its parent company which will be able to reduce its taxable profit. The learned DR vehemently supported the stand of the AO by reiterating the findings contained in the assessment order which we have already adverted to in the preceding paragraph. Therefore we are not repeating the same for the sake of brevity. 7.5 On the other hand, the learned AR before us submitted that issue of eligibility of the assessee under section 80IE of the Act arising from A.Y. 2010-11 which was the first year of the claim where the AO disallowed the claim of deduction/exemption. On appeal the learned CIT(A) deleted the disallowances made by the AO against which the Revenue was in appeal before the ITAT in ITA No. 3541/Mum/2015 which has been vide order dated 16 th May 2019 decided in the favour of the assessee. Thus, once the eligibility of the assessee to claim deduction under section 80IE is upheld in the first year of claim, the same cannot be disputed in the subsequent year on the same ground. The ld. AR vehemently supported the order of the ld. CIT-A. Group Appeals – Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd (Erstwhile M/s. Sun Pharma Sikkim) AY : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 9 8. We have heard the rival contention of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. At the outset, we find that issue on hand is covered by the order of the coordinate bench of this tribunal in the own case of the assessee for AY 2010-11 in ITA Nos. 3541/Mum/2017, where the bench vide order dated 16 th May 2019 held as under: 18. Before adverting to the specific facts, we deem it appropriate to keep in mind that the assessee has moved an application under rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 for permission to adduce additional evidence. In such application, it was contended by the assessee that the AO has issued a questionnaire on 12.11.2012 directing the assessee to file details on 29 counts. He directed the assessee to submit details of plant & machinery as on 16.1.2009 as well as on 31.3.2010 along with relevant bills chronologically arranged and grouped as appearing in accounts. The assessment order has been passed on 19.3.2013. Since it was the first year of the firm, the bills were kept at the factory at Gangtok (Sikkim) and staff was not well conversant with the assessment proceedings. Due to this limitation, it took more time to get bills from them. Hence, the assessee could not submit complete details in a short span of time, and therefore, sought to submit complete details. The ld.CIT(A) called for a remand report from the AO on the admission of the additional evidences, and thereafter putting reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Smt.Prabhavati Shah, 231 ITR 1 (Bom) allowed such application. She took the evidence sought to be placed on record by way of additional evidence. The ld.CIT(A) thereafter called for a remand report from the AO on such evidence and made analysis in order to determine whether the existing plant & machinery exceeds 20% of the old machinery in the total value of the plant & machinery. In the grounds of appeal, Revenue has nowhere raised any ground challenging permission for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A. In order to habour a belief that the assessee-firm was formed by splitting up and reconstruction of existing business of SPI, the ld.AO has narrated first circumstances that the application for grant of licence to manufacture or for sale or for distribution of drugs bear the date of 21.2.2007; whereas as per partnership deed, the firm has come into existence on 15.1.2009. The AO assumed that unit was functioning from earlier time as a unit of SPI Dadra and Jammu. By this plea, it was contended by the assessee that the said date is taken on account of typographical error and drawing attention to the fact that both the cover letter and form no.24 to the application clearly mentioned the correct date of 21.2.009. The ld.CIT(A) verified this fact and accepted that licence was taken on 21.2.2009 and not 21.2.2007 as inferred by the AO. Thus, on re-appreciation of this fact, we are of the view that the ld.AO has taken wrong facts which goaded him to a wrong conclusion. This circumstance cannot be used as a corroborative factor for harbouring a belief that the assessee-firm was constituted after splitting up and reconstruction of existing business. 19. Next reason assigned by the AO in this regard is that Sun Pharma Sikkim was initially being set up as a unit of SPI. When SPI was denied deduction under section 80IA, Sikkim plant was ready for commercial production. The assessee firm was created on 15.1.2009. It booked cost through debit note on 5.3.2009 and journal entry. According to the AO, transfer of assets was just 15 days prior to the issue of provisional licence to manufacture on 20.3.2009 and 46 days prior to the commercial production which created a suspicion about establishment of a new undertaking at Sikkim. The AO thereafter made reference to the production and sales of Sun Pharma prior to splitting up and reconstruction and after such establishment of assessee-firm at Sikkim. On these circumstances, he harboured a belief that the assessee-firm has been established by splitting up and reconstruction of existing business which is a violation of sub-section (3) of section 80IE of the Act. On appeal, the ld.CIT(A) has re-appreciated this aspect and it was contended before the ld.CIT(A) that group was seeking its consolidated shares in the US market and to that end, it was required to secure US FDI approval which mean that unit(s) Group Appeals – Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd (Erstwhile M/s. Sun Pharma Sikkim) AY : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 10 earmarked for production of export products could not be used for the purpose of domestic manufacture also. The assessee has further submitted that process of compliance with US FDI regulation is time consuming and spanned over 18 to 25 months. It demonstrated these facts before the ld.CIT(A) which have been noted on page no.10 as under: Dadra Unit: • Date of application : May, 2008 • Date of acceptance (EOU authority): July, 2008 • Date of acceptance (US FDA authority): July, 2008 various compliances : during July 2008 to December 2009 • Date of actual export/s : January, 2010 and onwards Jammu Unit: • Date of application submitted to NSEZ; April 2009 • Date of US FDA application: April 2009 • Letter of Permission issued by the Development Commissioner NSEZ: June 2010 • Issue of license by Central Excise, Jammu: September 2010 • Commencement of production in EOU: October 2010 20. On strength of the above details, it contended that US FDI approval to Jammu unit was ultimately abandoned as, such approval was denied to other applicants. It was further submitted that production of medicine at the Jammu unit was suffered loss due to fire and accident, besides, due to general disturbances in the region of Jammu. On analysis of the above details, the ld.CIT(A) did not concur with the view of the AO, and observed that decline in production in these units was on account of business strategy adopted by the group in Jammu and productivity was suffered due to disturbances in the area. The ld.CIT(A) thereafter made reference to the circular issued by the CBDT and took into consideration the definition of expression “industrial undertaking” and “initial year” provided in section 80IE(7) of the Act. The discussion made by the ld.CIT(A) in this regard is worth to note. It reads as under: “4.2.6 With regard to the deduction under section 80IE, it is to be noted that the same is available to an 'industrial undertaking' and the deduction is available from the Initial assessment year'. 'Initial assessment year' is defined in section 80IE(7)(i) to mean that the assessment year in which the industrial undertaking begins to manufacture or produce. It is also an equally settled position of law that deduction is qua an undertaking and not qua an assessee. Circular F No.15/5/63- IT(A-l) dated 13.12.1963 of CBDT clarified that a new industrial undertaking taken over by another assessee before the expiry of five year the successor will be entitled to the benefit of unexpired period of five years provided the undertaking is taken over as a running concern. Given that section 84 and 80IE are in parimateria, such deduction is available to an undertaking that acquires a running concern for the unexpired period of deduction. Therefore, once the undertaking remains unaffected or unchanged by subsequent change in the ownership, it cannot be said that the business of the undertaking has been reconstructed. Adverting to the facts of the appellant's case, it can be seen that the appellant had acquired the undertaking from SPI. The only change which took place is the ownership of the undertaking i.e. from SPI to SPS. Everything else remains the same. SPI had also filed an application vide letter dated 5th March 2009 (enclosed in Pages 124 & 125 of the paper book) before the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise surrendering its Central Excise Registration for the Sikkim unit and stating that ownership of the undertaking has changed and that the capital goods purchased were never installed by SPI. There is also no dispute of the fact that the undertaking was under construction at the time when SPI sold it to the Appellant. Accordingly, the unit is transferred before commencement of undertaking. Thus Group Appeals – Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd (Erstwhile M/s. Sun Pharma Sikkim) AY : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 11 from the facts on record, the irresistible conclusion is that the undertaking at Sikkim is not formed by splitting up or reconstruction and is a new unit and therefore, is entitled to the claim of deduction under section 80-IE of the Act. 21. With the assistance of the ld. representatives, we have gone through the record carefully. The ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that identical aspects have been considered in the case of Jammu unit. He made reference to the ITAT order of Amristar Bench as well as ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of Dadra unit. We will be taking note of such details while taking cognizance in CIT(A)’s order in para 4.2.15. The basic question is, whether the AO is able to lay his hand on sufficient material demonstrating the fact that the assessee has been established by splitting up and reconstruction of the existing business of SPI. The circumstances considered by the AO for arriving at a conclusion that it has been formed by splitting up are not sufficient to prove the view point of the AO. A perusal of the CIT(A)’s order would indicate that the ld.CIT(A) has minutely examined each circumstance considered by the AO, and thereafter held that the AO failed to bring any specific instance which can buttress his conclusion. Thus after going through a well reasoned finding of the CIT(A) on this issue, we are of the view that the assessee firm has not been formed by splitting up and reconstruction of existing business of SPI. 22. Next circumstances assigned by the AO is that total value of plant & machinery installed in the industrial undertaking included more than 20% of old plant & machinery. 23. Brief facts with regard to the above are that total amount of plant & machinery of Rs.49.33 crores were stated to be installed by the assessee. According to the AO, the plant & machinery having value of Rs.14.98 crores represented old and second-hands machinery. To counter this plea of the AO, the assessee has filed additional evidences before the ld.CIT(A) which were taken on record and remand report was called for. These details have been noticed by the ld.CIT(A) in para 4.2.8. Thereafter, the ld.CIT(A) took into consideration reconciled statement of plant & machinery while taking note of written submissions filed by the assessee. After a detailed examination, the ld.CIT(A) has held that the assessee has not used old plant & machinery exceeding 20%. The discussion made by the CIT(A) is worth to note. It reads as under: “4.2.10 The contentions of the appellant have been duly considered along with the findings AO. On perusal of the impugned order it is seen that while the AO, at the time of assessment noted that the appellant had furnished incomplete details of the addresses of suppliers to prevent verification, no such exercise was undertaken during remand proceedings when the appellant furnished the bills and vouchers for fresh verification. Test-check of the bills produced during these proceedings shows that the appellant's contention is borne out as follows: Sr. No. Name of Vendor Bill Amount Observations Of AO Remarks 122-6 &122- 7 in list of duplicate bills Suvidha Engineers India Ltd. 1,80,544/- Duplicate Bill is dated 01/01/2007 and pertains to HVAC System i.e. Heating, Air-conditioning and Ventilation system. 145-1 in list of duplicate bills Meckins Engineering 2,00,000/- Xerox copy This is an original bill for Design and Engineering services 145-6 in list of duplicate bills Veedhi International 3,47,906/- Xerox copy This is an original bill Group Appeals – Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd (Erstwhile M/s. Sun Pharma Sikkim) AY : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 12 122-5 in list of bills where LR etc. is not available Suvidha Engineers IndiaLtd. 1,80f544/- LR not available Bill is backed up by internal documentation in the form of 'group inward memo (GIM)' and bears the stamp of lT&CT Division of Govt. of Sikkim. 37 HI Chem Distributors 24,856/- LR not available Delivery challan is available, GIM details recorded. 65 Ravi Kiran Industries 3,93, 520/- LR not available LR available Sikkim Check Post Stamp on bill 87 SaurashtraSysto Pack 1,30,5S32/- LR not available Bill pertains to Unique Bursting Strength Board Tester. LR available 95. System Anatech (India) P Ltd. . 71,650/- LR not available. TIN is of Sikkim State - in the name of Sudhir V. Valla Delivery challan is available. TIN form shows registered in the name of SudhirValia under the trade name 'Sun Pharmaceutical Industries. ' SudhirValia is Director in the Group. 112 Rushabh Enterprises 58,088/- LR not available Check post stamp present on bill. 164 Sainath Pneumatics and Boliers 1,54,473/- LR not available Bill for spare parts for Saizoner, platform for RMG2501 with railing. Delivery challan present 203 VigneshTechnoste et 1,27,296/- LR not available Bears Sikkim Check Post stamp for 25/12/2009 and entry stamp into SPS on 26/12/2009. 246 Print Electronic Equipment 1,07,100 LR not available Bill for Oasys RF with storage and in built UPS. Invoice cum delivery challan available. 4.2.11 After considering the submissions of the appellant and the observations of the AO in the remand report, I find that on the issue of duplicate bills the AO has not carried out any independent enquiry to establish that such bills pertained to machinery that had already been put to use prior to its installation in the appellant's unit. In my considered opinion, the mere fact that a particular piece of plant or machinery is supported by a duplicate bill, by itself does not prove that the said item is second hand or used. The appellant's contention that many a time the original bills are retained by the State Government Check Post authorities etc. is not without weight. The bills purchased in the prior period are seen to be pertaining to the infra structural part of the new unit and nothing has been brought on record to show that such installation was utilized prior to the commencement of commercial production by the appellant, It is also seen that in most cases where the bills are duplicate or photocopies, the appellant has made other purchases from the same parties also for which original bills are available. The availability of these original bills from the same vendors indicates that the these parties were regular entities and that transactions with them were not isolated purchases. Further there is nothing to establish that the machinery evidenced by duplicate/xerox bills was second hand, Also, in relation to the bills lost due to fire at Sikkim, it is seen that the appellant has supported the explanation with the press clippings and FIR. The ledger accounts of the parties from whom the said assets were made interalia indicate receipt of goods through Group Appeals – Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd (Erstwhile M/s. Sun Pharma Sikkim) AY : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 13 valid bills for which payments are made by cheques. No enquiry was undertaken by the AO from these suppliers. As observed earlier, to my mind, simply the fact of supporting evidence existing In the form of duplicate bills, cannot lead to the conclusion that machinery was proven as old/used. In view of these facts, it cannot be concluded that the AO's computation of the value of machinery held to be old/second hand/used is based on fact. For these reasons, I find that it is not established that proportion of old machinery in Sikkim unit exceeded the stipulation of 20% as required by the Act and so the claim of the appellant cannot be on this ground. 4.2.12 The appellant has also given detailed submissions relating to the observations made by the AO in the assessment order for the succeeding year as regards the inferences drawn from the impounded papers. In the said order, the AO has noted that a 'final bill' from M/s Uksoms Engineering impounded during the survey proceedings indicates that the building in question was completed as on 31/02/2007 and therefore it can be concluded that SPI was carrying out business from the said premises from F.Y. 2007-08. In this regard, it has been submitted by the appellant that the bill in question is only for the completion of the outward structure housing the plant at Sikkim and does not in any way indicate the that commercial production had started. It is further stated that in the pharmaceutical industry, the initial phase of setting up of the plant involves considerable civil work including the installation of the Air Handling Unit (AHU) and that commercial production requires many other types of plant and machinery. On perusal of a copy of the said bill it is seen that same is clearly relating to civil construction work inasmuch as it details work relating to excavation, filling, steel reinforcement, masonry, plaster and water-proofing work. In its submissions the appellant has continuously been stating that work relating to the Sikkim unit was initially undertaken by SPI and that it was only at a later stage that the appellant firm was brought into existence and that the plant and machinery etc. was duly assigned to the appellant firm. That being the case, civil work would have certainly begun much prior to 2009 and the fact that M/s Yuksom Engineering Works has Issued the final bill dated 31/03/2007 can only be taken as proof for completion of the works Indicated therein and not as evidence to show commencement of commercial production as the mere existence of an outside structure cannot by itself be taken to indicate that commercial work was going on inside it. 4.2.12 The AO has further observed that the commencement certificate issued by the Dept. of Commerce & Industries, Govt. of Sikkim was issued on 14/12/2009 and from this fact inferred that the genuineness of the certificate was doubtful since while it gave the issue of date of commencement of production as 20/04/2009, it was issued 7 months later. In this regard the appellant has stated that the impounded certificate is issued by the appropriate State Govt. department and is signed by the Asst. Director of the said Apartment and is to be accepted in total, In these proceedings it has been emphasized that the date of commercial production given in the said certificate is confirmed by other records also. A perusal of the copy of the said certificate does not indicate any overwriting etc, that may be cause for any suspicion. The office address and telephone numbers of the issuing authority are clearly mentioned on the document but other than express doubt, the AO has not made any independent enquiry to bring on record any evidence to establish that the date of commencement mentioned in the said certificate was incorrect. Thus, the fact that the certificate itself is issued at a later date cannot be considered evidence of fabrication of date of commencement of commercial production particularly when such date of commencement is supported by other documents also. 4.2.13 The third aspect highlighted in A.Y. 2011-12 by the AO as giving rise to doubt, is that key components of plant and machinery including a clit mill, blister pack machine, fluid bed dryer and blender were found to be operational on dates Group Appeals – Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd (Erstwhile M/s. Sun Pharma Sikkim) AY : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 14 after 20/04/2009 i.e. after the declared date of commercial production. In this regard the appellant has stated that the machines installed after 20/04/2009 were in addition to similar plant and machinery already installed and in use and therefore production could take place even before the additional machineries were installed during the period subsequent to April 2009. A perusal of the copies of papers relating to capitalisation of fixed assets impounded during survey show that the fluid bed dryer, clit mill, blister pack machine, blender, dissolution tester etc, were already installed as on 20/04/2009. Thus, in view of the fact that machinery required for these functions was already installed as on date of commencement of commercial production, it cannot be held that simply because additional units of similar machinery were installed subsequently, the appellant cannot have begun commercial production on the said date. 4.2.14 The AO has also drawn support from an impounded document issued by the Commercial Tax Division, Sikkim wherein it is mentioned that environmental liability for 2.4 crores is due from Sun Pharma Sikkim for the period October 2006 to March 2011. In this regard, the appellant has stated that the said notice was issued taking into account date of beginning of factory construction and that the appellant has only paid a fraction of the demand. From a perusal of the said document I find that it is merely a show cause which has been duly replied to by the appellant and that the document itself does reflect any adverse inference drawn by the Commercial Tax Division, Sikkim. 4.2.15 The AO has further sought to draw inference from the denial of deduction u/s 80IB(4) in the case of the sister concern Sun Pharma Industries Dadra Unit and Jammu Unit for A.Y. 2004-05 and 2005-06 to support his conclusions in the case of the appellant firm, stating that while the ITAT has decided the issue, the Department has not accepted the decision and the matter is pending adjudication before the High Court. A perusal of the orders passed by the Hon'ble ITAT in the case of SPI reveals that the Tribunal considered the issues related to disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB to SPI Jammu (on similar footing as in the present case), in detail in the orders passed for A.Y. 2005-06 (dated 11.06.2010 and 07.06.2012) and orders passed subsequently in relation to A.Yrs. 2004-05, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 (dated 12/06/2012). The aspect of notional disallowances in respect of selling and distribution expenses etc. was also duly adjudicated upon. Subsequent to the passing of the ITAT orders, the matter is pending in appeal before the High Court. To my mind the fact that further appeal is pending does not by itself lend greater solidity to the AO's conclusion. **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** 24. The ld.CIT(A) thereafter discussed each judgment in detail which were considered by the AO for construing the meaning of old plant & machinery and how it has to infer that the assessee has used old plant & machinery. Such detailed discussion of the ld.CIT(A) is available from pages 22 to 31. Thereafter, the ld.CIT(A) concluded on this aspect as under: “4.2.18 Therefore on close study of the case laws relied on by the AO, it is seen that the judicial pronouncements actually support the facts of the appellant’s case to show that in the present case, there is no reconstruction or splitting up of an earlier existing business. The appellant's case is also further strengthened by the decisions discussed In Para 4.2.17. above. Thus the inescapable conclusion is that there is no splitting up or reconstruction in the case of the appellant during the year under consideration. The aspect of the old/used machinery less than the stipulated limit of 20% has already been found to be in favour of the appellant in the discussion from para 4.2.7 to para 4.2.15. That being so held, the aspect of Group Appeals – Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd (Erstwhile M/s. Sun Pharma Sikkim) AY : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 15 notional disallowances made by the AO on account of royalty, selling and distribution expenses etc. is adjudicated upon in the following paragraphs” 25. During the course of hearing, the ld.DR relied upon the order of the AO; on the other hand, the ld.counsel for the assessee submitted that ld.CIT(A) has considered each and every aspect and also distinguished as to how the judgments put into service by the AO, are not applicable on the facts of the present case. The ld.counsel for the assessee also relied upon the orders of the ITAT passed in the case of its sister concern viz. Jammu Unit and Dadra Unit. Appeals of these units have been decided by the ITAT Amristar as well as Mumbai Bench. These orders have been placed on record i.e. ITA No.184/ASR/2009 Asstt.Year 2005-06. 26. We have duly considered rival contentions and gone through the details. According to the AO, bills having value of Rs.6.88 crores with regard to certain additions to plant & machinery were not furnished. Therefore, he presumed such machinery as second-hand machinery. Against his presumption, the assessee has filed an application for permission to adduce additional evidence. It was contended therein that questionnaire issued on 12.11.2012; bills were lying at factory premises in Sikkim; staff was not well conversant with income tax proceedings; they were lying in boxes; hence in a short span of time, complete details could not be submitted. Thereafter, the assessee produced complete details. The remand report was called for by the ld.CIT(A) on those details. In the remand proceedings, each bill was analysed and objection of the AO were noted. The bills have been discussed by the CIT(A) and the details are available in tabular form extracted (supra). We also have perused such details and are of the view that the defects are not substantive. They have only shown that some of the bills are photo-copies, LRs are not available etc. The ld.CIT(A) while considering these defects observed that the AO should have made an inquiry from the original suppliers and when such machineries were supplied. He did not make any inquiry rather presumed certain facts that machineries are old one. In the finding recorded by the first appellate authority extracted (supra) reveals a detailed analysis and a finding of fact that total machinery having value of Rs.14.98 crore considered by the AO as representing old was not sustainable. Therefore, after going through the detailed analysis made by the ld.CIT(A) we are of the view that Revenue failed to demonstrate that machineries exceeding 20% of the total value of the plant & machinery were old machinery. Therefore, considering the facts on this fold of grievance of the Revenue, we do not find any error in the order of the ld.CIT(A). Assessee is entitled for deduction under section 80IE of the Act. 8.1 Before us, no material has been placed on record by the Revenue to demonstrate that the decision of Tribunal as discussed above has been set aside / stayed or overruled by the Higher Judicial Authorities. Before us, the learned DR has not placed any material on record to point out any distinguishing feature in the facts of the case for the year under consideration and that of earlier year nor has placed any contrary binding decision in its support. Thus, respectfully following the order this tribunal in the own case of assessee, we uphold the finding of the learned CIT(A). Thus, the ground of appeal raised by the Revenue is hereby dismissed. Group Appeals – Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd (Erstwhile M/s. Sun Pharma Sikkim) AY : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 16 9. The next issue raise by the Revenue vide ground Nos. I(b) and I(c) is that the learned CIT(A) erred in quashing the book result under section 145(3) of the Act made by the AO. 9.1 The AO during the assessment proceeding found that that the assessee firm showing net profit rate @ 67.85 and claiming 100% exemption/deduction under section 80IE of the Act whereas the majority partner of the assessee firm being Sun Pharma Industries Ltd (97.5%) not enjoying tax holiday and engaged in identical activity declaring NP ratio at 3.12% only. The AO compared the NP ratio declared by the other assessee engaged pharmaceutical industries and found that the average NP declared by those assessee comes at 15.65%. Thus in view of the above the AO was of the opinion that the assessee in order to show higher profit which is eligible for deduction in its books of account and to reduce the profitability of parent company SPIL diverts the its ( the assessee) expenses in the books of the SPIL. Therefore, the AO called for certain details which were not provided by the assessee. 9.2 The AO also found that there was survey proceeding under section 133A of the Act carried out in case of the assessee as on 08-11-2011 and it was revealed that expenses such as research and development, selling and distribution and marketing and royalty etc incurred on behalf/for the assessee are claimed by the SPIL in its books. Thus, the AO in view of the above held that correctness of the books result declared by the assessee is not reliable and accordingly the AO rejected the books of the assessee by invoking the provisions of section 145(3) of the Act. 9.3 On appeal by the assessee, the leaned CIT(A) quashed the action for rejecting the books of account under section 145(3) of the Act by observing as under: ”5.4 The provisions of section 145(3) of the Act empowers the AO to reject the books of account and estimate income in the manner as provided under section 144 only if he is not satisfied about the correctness and completeness of accounts of assessee or accounting standards notified have not been followed by the assessee. As seen from the order of the A.O., there are no findings as to the fact that the books of account of the assessee are not correct or complete. There is also no finding that the method of accounting followed by the assessee is not in accordance with the standards notified. The major plank for rejection of Group Appeals – Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd (Erstwhile M/s. Sun Pharma Sikkim) AY : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 17 the books of account seems to be not furnishing details in the form and manner as asked for by the AO. Hence, instead of specific findings, there appears to be a presumption on the part of the AO that the books of account of the assessee are not correct or complete. In the case where the books of accounts of the assessee has been duly audited, it is expected that the Assessing Officer shall bring on record specific defects in the books of account of the assessee before invoking the provisions of Section 145(3) of the Act. 5.5 In CIT vs Amitbhai Gunvantbhai (1981) 129 1TR 573 (Guj) it was held by the Hon'ble High Court that the basic principle is the same in law relating to Income-tax as well as in civil law, namely if there is no challenge to the transaction j represented by the entries, then it is not open to the revenue or other side to I contend that what is shown by the entries is not real state of affairs. It therefore follows that when a return is furnished based on an account duly audited by the Auditor, the said account should be taken as the basis for assessment and that the account could not be rejected unless there are evidences brought on record so as to establish that the Assessing Officer is not satisfied about the correctness or completeness of the accounts of the assessee. In Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs CIT (1959) 37 1TR 288(SC) it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that there is no presumption of bad faith against an assessee unless there is sufficient material on record to establish and sustain bad faith. Further, in ACIT vs Roopchand Tharani (249 CTR 326(Chattisgarh High Court) it was held by the Hon'ble High Court that where the AO has not pointed out that any specific defect or discrepancy in the account books maintained by the assessee, which are duly audited by an independent chartered accountant, there was no justification in rejecting the books of account and making the addition to the declared income. 5.6 The Hon'ble ITAT, Agra in the case of ITO vs Mayur Agarwal(2010) 133 TTJ 1 (Agra) was held that the books of account of the assessee could not be rejected by invoking the provisions of section 145(3) of the Act when no specific defect is pointed out in the books of account regularly maintained by the assessee or the method of accounting regularly employed by the assessee. In CIT vs Jacksons House (2010) 195 Taxman 402 (Del.) that additions made by alleging imagined manipulation without verifying the material available through field enquiry, and only based on own judgement, was held to be not justified. In ITO v. Girish M Mehta (20081 296 ITR (.AT) 125 (Rajkot), it was pointed out, that the pre- condition for estimating business income of the assessee, where an assessee keeps accounts is that the assessee's books should have been found to be unreliable or otherwise not capable of proving the assessee's income. However, in this case, it is found that theAO has proceeded to compute the income of the assessee on the basis of book results shown by the assessee, after making specific disallowances, which in itself amounts to a finding that the books of account of the assessee could not be said as unreliable or otherwise not capable of proving the assessee's income. In CIT vs Paradise Holidays (2010) 325 ITR 13 (Delhi) it was held that Assessing Officer having made separate and distinct additions for ail the defects mentioned by him for rejection of books of account of the assessee, book result could not be rejected more so when the Assessing Officer has relied upon incomparable cases. Hence, the rejection of books of accounts cannot be sustained merely on the fact that the certain details were not filed in the manner and form as called for by the AO. Similarly, the system of accounting adopted by the assessee cannot be rejected merely on this ground more so when specific disallowances have been made and the total income of the assessee was computed on the basis of book result shown by the assessee after making specific additions and disallowances on the basis of the same. 5.7 In the case of Haridas Parikh V ITO [2009] 29 SOT 13 (30DH.)(URO), it was held by Hon'ble Tribunal that Unless the Assessing Officer is able to point out certain transactions which have been left to be entered in the books of account or that the assessee has sold some of the items at a price higher than what is disclosed in the books of account or if proper particulars, bills, vouchers, are not forthcoming etc., the books of account cannot be rejected without assigning specific reasons. Absence of vouchers or the supporting evidence in respect of a particular item of expenditure cannot by itself empower an Assessing Officer to invoke provision of Section 145(3) in rejecting the books of account. Group Appeals – Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd (Erstwhile M/s. Sun Pharma Sikkim) AY : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 18 Amritsar Bench of the Hon'ble Tribunal in Ashok Kumar a Co. v. IT0110043 2 SOT 518 (Asr.) (SMC) held that rejection of books cannot be restored to simply on the basis of absence of some vouchers and failure to produce the same by the assessee. In other words, any such situation should only warrant a specific addition by the Assessing Officer if he comes to a conclusion that such expenditure had not been incurred or not verifiable. Instead of adopting this accepted approach if an Assessing Officer resorts to a convenient approach of rejecting the books in total such action would be illegal against the tenets of Law. In an identical case Kerala High Court in the case of CM. Francis & Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT held that where purchase vouchers for agricultural produce purchased from agriculturists could not be produced, books of account cannot be rejected in total on the basis of such finding. Allahabad High Court in another case of Imran Ahmed v. CIT 1982 Tax LR (NOC) 111 (All.) held that on account of mere absence of vouchers to substantiate entries for the accounts, account in total cannot be rejected. In this scenario a very general finding made by the Assessing Officer without any specific focus on any particular item of expenditure, entire accounts cannot be rejected under Section 145(3). Action of the Assessing Officer clearly demonstrates that he could not gather any details or find any irregularity in maintenance of the books so as to justify rejection of books in toto. 5.8 Further, It was held by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Hemraj Nebhomal & Sons v. C11120051 146 Taxman 345 (M.P.) that the assessee is not under obligation to satisfy the Assessing Officer as to the legitimacy and necessity of expenditure. The Nagpur Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Section Gurlal Singh Tu!l v. Asstt CIT [2000] 73 ITD 365 (Nag.) held it was the bounden duty of the Assessing Officer and Commissioner (Appeals) to verify and indicate the particulars of the expenditure which were not vouched. But here too it would be a good case for separate addition only and not for rejection of books of account. It is well-settled principle that the power of rejection of books of account should be reasonably and judicially exercised. The Hon'ble Allahabad high Court held in the case of CIT vs. Mascot (India) Tools & Forgings (P) Ltd. (2010) 36 DTR 336 that in the absence of any specific instances of mistakes in the books of account and other records, the book result cannot be rejected on the basis of any hypothetical calculations based on erroneous presumptions. 5.9 Hence, Simply stating that the expenditure is not verifiable because certain details were not filed before the details without pinpointing any specific defects in the books of account specifically when the assessee is disputing such a finding and is producing evidence to counter the findings of the Assessing Officer, could not be a valid reason for rejection of books, more so when the AO has proceeded to compute the taxable income of the assessee on the basis of book result shown by the assessee and not in the manner as prescribed in section 144 of the Act, In view of the facts and legal propositions as discussed above, it is held that the rejection of books of account in this case is not legally tenable and hence, rejection of books of account by the AO could not be upheld. Ground No. 2 is accordingly, allowed.” 9.4 Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A) the Revenue is in appeal before us. 9.5 The learned DR before us vehemently supported the stand of the AO by reiterating the findings contained in the assessment order which we have already adverted to in the preceding paragraph. Therefore we are not repeating the same for the sake of brevity. Group Appeals – Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd (Erstwhile M/s. Sun Pharma Sikkim) AY : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 19 9.6 The ld. AR, on the other hand, submitted that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the order of the tribunal in ITA No 3377 & 3541/Mum/2017 in own case of the assessee for A.Y. 2010-11. 10. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case, including the materials available on record. As per section 145(3) of the Act, the AO is empowered to reject the books of accounts of the assessee and make best judgment assessment in the manner as specified under section 144 of the Act if he is not inter-alia satisfied with the completeness or correctness of the books of accounts of the assessee. Generally, the instances for the rejection of books of account include when entries in respect of certain transactions are altogether omitted or incorrect or where the accounts show an abnormally low rate of profit or where there is an inherent lacuna in the system of accounting. However, the AO cannot use this power as a tool to reject the books of accounts merely due to non-maintenance of the stock register, variation in gross profit and non-furnishing of certain vouchers or its explanation or non- confirmation of sundry creditors. Anyway, before rejecting the books of accounts, the AO must record the specific reasons for rejecting the books of accounts. Such satisfaction has to be established and substantiated based on facts and figures, which further depends on the circumstances of each case. Mere minor mistakes/typological errors/absence of stock registers/ lower GP may not ipso facto amount to incorrectness/incompleteness of accounts in terms of section 145(3) of the Act. But the case would be different where the above-mentioned mistakes are coupled with other findings. In the given case, AO has rejected the book results for the reason that the assessee has not provide certain details asked for during the course of assessment and the assessee diverted in its expenses in books of parent company to claim higher exemption under section 80IA of the Act. However the AO did not make any estimate of NP or GP. 10.1 In this connection we found that the assessee has maintained proper books of account and furnished details as required by the assessee except certain detail with respect to that the assessee has submitted either those required detail not applicable in its case or some detail are at factory premises will be submitted at Group Appeals – Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd (Erstwhile M/s. Sun Pharma Sikkim) AY : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 20 later stage if required. In these documentary evidence no defect was pointed out by the AO. Therefore, without bringing any corroborative material on record suggesting specific defect in the books of account the book result cannot be rejected merely for not providing certain detail which AO requires to verify. In holding so we draw support and guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in case of Awadhesh Pratap Singh Adbul Rehman & Bros v/s. CIT 201 ITR 404(All) which reads as; “It is difficult to catalogue the various types of defects in the account books of an assessee which may render rejection of account books on the ground that the accounts are not complete or correct from which the correct profit cannot be deduced. Whether presence or absence of stock register is material or not, would depend upon the type of the business. It is true that absence of stock register or cash memos in a given situation may not per se lead to an inference that accounts are false or incomplete. However, where a stock register, cash memos, etc., coupled with other factors like vouchers in support of the expenses and purchases made are not forthcoming and the profits are low, it may give rise to a legitimate inference that all is not well with the books and the same cannot be relied upon to assess the income, profits or gains of an assessee. In such a situation the authorities would be justified to reject the account books under section 145(3) and to make the assessment in the manner contemplated in these provisions.” 10.2 Without prejudice to the above, we also note that the AO after rejecting the books accounts has proceeded to disallow or recomputed the deduction under section 80IA of the Act on various different grounds. In other words, the AO has relied upon the same set of data/figures as shown by the assessee for making allowances or disallowances. As such, there was no iota of doubt on the genuineness of the other income and the expenses was brought on record by the AO. To our mind, once the books of accounts have been rejected, the AO has to estimate the profit and he has no right to make any individual addition or deletion to the total income of the assessee. However in the case on hand, the AO has not done so. In holding so we draw support and guidance from the judgment of this tribunal in case of Hynope Food and Oil Industries Pvt. Ltd reported in 48 ITD 202 where it was held as under: Section 145 deals with two situations : (a) where the method of accounting is faulty, and (b) where the accounts are not correct or complete. In the case of the former, the Assessing Officer is empowered to compute the income upon such basis and in such manner as he may determine. So far as the latter is concerned, the Assessing Officer is empowered to make a best judgment assessment as provided in section 144, that is, after taking into account all relevant materials which he has gathered. Further, section 145(1) is an enabling provision. It is intended to enable the Assessing Officer to make the correct Group Appeals – Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd (Erstwhile M/s. Sun Pharma Sikkim) AY : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 21 assessment which is the paramount object. It is not intended to confer any right or benefit upon an erring assessee. Thus, this section is intended to make the correct assessment in compliance with the law and not to by-pass the statutory provisions. It is a fair proposition that if an overall estimate of income has been made, there would not be any scope for making any disallowances and applying section 40A(3). This is not because the statutory provisions can be ignored or excluded but because they must be deemed to have been applied in making the estimate so that there is no scope for any further deductions. Thus, if an estimate is made on the basis of gross profit by using comparative instances, there would be no scope for further deductions applying section 40A(3). Therefore, all depended upon the manner of making the estimate. If it had been made in a way which covered the entire position regarding income and expenditure, naturally there would not be any scope for further deductions. 10.3 In view of the above and after considering the facts in totality, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned CIT (A). Accordingly, we uphold the same. Hence the ground of appeal of the revenue is dismissed. 11. The next issue raised by the Revenue vide ground Nos. III(a) to VII(a) is that the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowances of deduction u/s 80IE of the Act made on account of apportionment of selling & distribution expenses, R&D expenses, royalty expenses, managerial fee and remuneration to partners SPIL. 11.1 The AO during the assessment proceeding found that that the assessee firm is an eligible entity for deduction under section 80IE of the Act which is managed &controlled by the M/s SPIL in such a way that resulted in shifting of taxable profit of M/s SPIL to the assessee firm which is exempted under section 80IE of the Act. The AO found that identical arrangement was also found in case of the sister concern of the assessee namely Sun Pharma Industries (SPI) in A.Y. 2004-05 to 2009-10 and taking leaf from the same, his predecessor in own case of the assessee for the A.Y. 2010-11 also found same modus operandi. Thus, the AO invoked the provision of section 80IA(10) read with section 80IE(6) of the Act and reduced the profit of the assessee firm by allocating the following expenses in turnover ratio which were assumed to be incurred by the parent company M/s SPIL on behalf/for the assessee. (i) Selling and distribution expenses for Rs. 182.57 crore (ii) Research and development expenses for Rs. 30.4 crore Group Appeals – Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd (Erstwhile M/s. Sun Pharma Sikkim) AY : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 22 11.2 Likewise the AO found that the assessee is using trade mark, brand and logo of M/s SPIL along with managerial services but no fee was paid by the assessee for the use of such trade mark, brand and logo or managerial services. The assessee also found that sister concern i.e. SPI also using the trade mark, brand and logo without paying royalty where the AO estimate the royalty at 8% of the turnover and managerial fees at 5% of turnover. Thus, following the same, the royalty fee of Rs. 139.42 crores allocated by the AO and also allocated the managerial fee for Rs. 87.14 crores being 5% of the turnover to the assessee firm. 11.3 The AO without prejudice to the above also found that the assessee is paying partner’s remuneration to M/s SPIL for 86,63,97,628/- and also similar remuneration was paid by SPI to M/s SPIL which was treated as taxable income of SPI under the provision of section of section 80IA(10) of the Act. Thus, following the same, the remuneration paid by the assessee to SPIL is taxable in the hand of the assessee. 11.4 On appeal by the assessee, the leaned CIT(A) following the order of his predecessor in own case of the assessee for the A.Y. 2010-11 and 2011-12 deleted the apportionment of the items as discussed above made by the AO. 11.5 Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A) the Revenue is in appeal before us. 11.6 The learned DR before us vehemently supported the stand of the AO by reiterating the findings contained in the assessment order which we have already adverted to in the preceding paragraph. Therefore we are not repeating the same for the sake of brevity. 11.7 On the other hand the learned AR before us submitted that identical apportionment of expenses was also made by the AO for A.Y. 2010-11 which was deleted by the learned CIT(A) and against which the Revenue was in appeal Group Appeals – Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd (Erstwhile M/s. Sun Pharma Sikkim) AY : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 23 before the ITAT in ITA No. 3541/Mum/2015 which has been vide order dated 16 th May 2019 decided in the favour of the assessee. 12. We have heard the rival contention of both the parties and perused the material available on record. At the outset we find that issue on hand is covered by order of the coordinate bench of this tribunal on own case of the assessee for A.Y. 2010-11 in ITA Nos. 3541/Mum/2017, where the bench vide order dated 16 th May 2019 held as under: 28. As far as section 80IE(6) is concerned, it contemplates that provisions contained in sub-section (5) and sub-sections (7) to (12) of section 80IA shall, so far as may be, apply to the eligible undertaking under this section. It contemplates that section 80IA(10) will be applicable for the purpose of section 80IE deduction. In other words, section 80IA(10) be considered as a part of section 80IE if the facts in this regard are available. A perusal of section 80IA(10) would reveal that if where on an analysis of the record it revealed to the AO that on account of close connection between the assessee carrying on the eligible business to which this section applies and any other person, or for any other reasons, the course of business between them is so arranged that the business transacted between them produces to the assessee more than the ordinary profits then the AO would reasonably take the profit on the basis of relevant factors. In other words, there should be an assessee who is eligible for deduction under Chapter-VIA. It should have close connection with other person or for any other reasons demonstrating the facts that they have arranged their affairs in such a manner which is resulting extra profit to the assessee eligible for deduction under Chapter-VIA, on establishment of such factor the ld.AO would re-estimate the profit of the eligible units, and thereafter compute the deduction. 29. The expression “the course of business between them is so arranged that the business transacted between them produces to the assessee more than the ordinary profits” it indicates that there should be demonstrative facts on the record indicating the arrangement which resulted extra profit to the assessee, who is eligible for deduction under Chapter-VIA. Let us evaluate the circumstances highlighted by the AO, and whether he has able to lay his hand on the evidence demonstrating the arrangement between assessee and the SPIL so that the expenditure debited by the SPIL are to be excluded from its accounts, and it should be allocated to the assessee, and its profit deserves to be reduced before computing the deduction under section 80IE of the Act. 30. In both the years, after raising ground no.1, rest of the grounds relate to allocation of certain expenditure to the assessee from the accounts of SPIL which has reduced the eligible profit for computation of deduction under section 80IE of the Act. We have noted down such allocation of expenditure while taking note of computation of income made by the AO. These expenses were under different heads, viz. (a) selling & distribution incurred by SPIL on behalf of the assessee, (b) Research and development expenditure alleged to have been incurred by SPIL on behalf of the assessee, (c) fees for use of royalty, trademark, logo, brand etc., and (d) managerial fees chargeable and due to M/s. SPIL. In order to appreciate the above issues, we find that the expenses under the above heads were alleged to have been incurred by the SPIL on behalf of the assessee. These expenses have been claimed by SPIL according to the AO. The ld.AO has calculated the expenses allowable to each entity on the basis of their turnover. He allocated the expenses to each assessee on the basis of turnover and accordingly reduced the eligible profit of the assessee by way of apportionment of expenditure. Let us take the first-one. The details with regard to the selling and distribution of products manufactured by SPIL Group Appeals – Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd (Erstwhile M/s. Sun Pharma Sikkim) AY : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 24 and SPI are being noticed by the AO in the assessment order in para 10.2. We deem it appropriate to take note of the finding which reads as under: “From the above it is clear that Research and Marketing activities relate to S & D of products manufactured both SPI & SPS {Assessee) are being done by SPIL and related expenditure are charged to SPIL account which reduces the profit of the SPIL. In other words the profit of 80IB and 801E units of SPI SPS are inflated. It is needless to say that assessee is just manufacturing pharmaceutical formulations and selling distribution and marketing expenses, Research etc. are done by SPIL and therefore, the expenses S & D marketing etc. should be borne by SPI and SPS (Assessee) and SPIL on the basis of turnover of each unit. In the circumstances Selling, Distribution and Marketing expenses are required to be allocated among all the units which is being done herein below: A.Y. 2010-11 (Amount in Crores) Name Turnover % age of Turnover Expenses debited on account of Total Expenses debited Proportionate Expenditure allocated on the basis of turnover Selling & Distribution Personnel staff cost (D (2) (3) (4) -(5) (6) (7) SPIL 1891.2 63% 122.3 76.9 199.2 132.8 SP1 496.5 16% 2.2 0 2.2 33.73 SPS 624 21% 9.4 0 9.4 44.27 Total 3011.7 100% 133.9 76.9 210.8 210.8 31. The AO was of the view that the assessee has turnover of Rs.624 crores. Its expenditure are in the ratio of turnover is 21% qua selling and distribution of the products. It has debited expenditure of Rs.9.4 crores only, whereas, it should have debited expenditure at Rs.44.27 crores. In this very manner, he has calculated the expenditure by SPI and made allocation. A perusal of the assessment order would indicate that he has basically used two information for harbouring a belief that affairs being arranged in such a manner which has resulted unreasonable profit to the assessee. The first evidence used by the ld.AO is the statement of Shri Sanjay Sahai, GM (Strategic Marketing & Research of SPIL) who is partner of the assessee. Thereafter he made reference to the statement of KalyanaSundaram, CEO of SPIL, carrying out sales & marketing and formulation activities. On the basis of these two statements recorded during the course of survey carried out at the premises of SPIL, he formed an opinion that these two senior managerial fellows have admitted that SPIL was expanding selling and distribution facility as well as R&D facilities for the assessee. In second circumstances, he has considered profit ratio shown by the assessee vis-à-vis SPIL. He made allocation of expenditure debited by the SPIL towards selling and R&D and such expenditure were allocated to the assessee which has reduced the profit. When this dispute went to the CIT(A), the ld.CIT(A) did not concur with the AO. Similarly, in the case of SPI, ITAT Amristar Bench did not concur with the AO and did not approve these adjustments. The finding of the ld.CIT(A) impugned herein on both these counts deserve to be noted, which read as under: “4.4.2 I have considered the facts related to the issue as they emanate from the impugned order and the submissions made in these proceedings. As per the partnership deed of the appellant, SPIL is one of the partners of the appellant firm. There is no dispute the fact that SPIL has been engaged in the business of pharmaceuticals viz. sale of bulk drugs and formulations for several years and has a well-established marketing network all over India. Further, as per the original Group Appeals – Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd (Erstwhile M/s. Sun Pharma Sikkim) AY : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 25 deed of partnership read with the supplementary deed dated 15.03.2012 it is evident that SPIL is to be remunerated for rendering various services to the appellant firm in the capacity of working partner. It is seen that the assertion of the AO that distribution and selling expenses are not incurred by the appellant is incorrect as appellant had debited Rs 9,4 crores to P&L A/c as selling and distribution expenses. Further, the AO has. placed heavy reliance on the statements recorded from Mrs. Kalyana Sundaram, CEO of SPIL and Shri Sanjay Sahai, GM (Strategic Marketing & Research) of SPILduring the survey proceedings. Both these persons have in the statements recorded stated that the marketing, selling and distribution activities are centralized functions. From the foregoing statement the AO inferred that the selling and distribution expenses incurred by the appellant are inadequate and that in actuality these are wholly incurred by SPIL and therefore, the profits of the appellant are overstated. However, as noted above, the inferences drawn by the AO suffer from factual inaccuracy inasmuch as the expenses incurred in relation to selling and distribution amounting to Rs, 9.4 crores and an amount of Rs. 6.3 crores is relating to commission on sales are duly to P&L Account by the appellant. It is also a matter of record that the appellant is paying 5% of its turnover to SPIL as remuneration for discharge of functions related to the appellant's business and that the said payment flows from the supplementary partnership deed as indicated above. Further, the AO considered the aggregate turnover of SPIL, SPI and appellant and apportioned the aggregate selling and distribution expenses incurred by the aforesaid 3 entities in the ratio of turnover. The AO has justified this allocation by stating that the expenses debited to P&.L A/c comprise of only commission on consignment sales and no expenses in the nature of market research, field personnel expenses, etc. are debited to P&.L A/c. As noted earlier, the appellant has incurred an amount of Rs. 6.3 crores as 'commission on sales' to M/s Aditya Medisales. Thus the total amount of expenses incurred by the appellant in relation to sales and distribution should be, the 15.7 crores (approx.). Further it is seen that similar disallowance in the case of SPI had been made by the AO for several A.Yrs. While deleting the said disallowance, the ITAT, Amritsar observed that the books of account of the appellant were duly audited and had not been rejected. The Tribunal further noted that selling and distribution expenses had to be considered in conjunction with the remuneration paid and that there could not be disallowance of expenses on notional basis. Thus after considering the facts related to the issue I find that the AO has not brought on record any empirical data to justify disallowance under this head over and above the expenses already incurred by the J appellant. Therefore, in view of the facts discussed, the disallowance made by the AO under this head cannot be sustained and the same is deleted. Accordingly, the ground raised by the appellant is allowed. **** **** **** 4.5.2 I have considered the facts related to the issue at hand. The fact that, the development of products is carried out only by SPIL is not disputed. It is also a fact that in such product technologies are completely owned by SPIL and that neither the appellant firm nor SPI hold any rights of ownership. In the impugned order, the AO has placed heavy reliance on the statement recorded from Dr. T. Rajamannar to conclude that R & D activity carried out by SPIL pertains to the appellant firm as well as SPI which fact is not denied by the appellant at any point in time. The appellant has explained that the products manufactured at the appellant unit are generic products. On consideration of facts it is apparent that the AO did not take into account the fact that the drugs being manufactured by the appellant firm did not enjoy high brand value but-were prescription drugs where the quality was more important than the brand recall. The AO also disregarded the decision passed by the Hon'ble Amritsar ITAT bench deleting the aforesaid addition in the case of SPI. Thus, on the facts of the case, there is nothing to show that the appellant should have paid any amount for R & D work to Group Appeals – Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd (Erstwhile M/s. Sun Pharma Sikkim) AY : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 26 SPIL, over and above the remuneration, Accordingly, the disallowance made cannot be sustained and is deleted. The ground raised by the appellant is therefore allowed.” 32. The question is, whether the AO was possessing sufficient evidence to demonstrate that on account of close connection between the assessee and SPIL they have arranged their affairs in such a manner which has resulted unreasonable profit to the assessee. As far as close connection is concerned, there is no dispute because SPIL is a working partner and having more than 97.5% shares. Thus, close connection is there. Reference to statement of Kalyana Sundaram and Sanjay Sahai are concerned, they were recorded under section 133A of the Act during the course of survey without oath. We have been informed that subsequently the statements were retracted. Decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Paul Mathews and Sons Vs. CIT, 263 ITR 101 (Ker) was brought to our notice. Similarly, proposition laid down in this decision was approved by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. S. Khadar Khan & Sons, 25 taxmann.com 413 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has upheld decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court which has referred judgment of Hon’ble Kerala High Court. In both these cases, it has been propounded that section 133A authorizes survey team to record statement, but such authorization is for recording of statement without administering an oath and statement recorded without oath has just a corroborative value as information. It is not an evidence per se. In the present case, these statements are general in nature highlighting the business operandi of a group as a whole. While appreciating some of the question, one has to keep in mind, the turnover of three concerns of group at Rs.3011 crores. The accounts of the assessee are audited. No defects were found from the accounts by the AO. There might have been various strategic decisions at the HQ level, which is looking after the different entities of the group as a whole. So on the basis of general statement, it could not be harhoured that exactly what expenditures of the assessee, were being borne by its working partner. The second circumstance referred by the AO is a comparable study from SPIL while considering the profit earned by the assessee vis-à-vis ratio of expenditure incurred by it. It is pertinent to observe that the assessee is in the business of manufacturing and sale of pharmaceuticals, drugs/medicines. Some of the drugs were manufactured as bulk drugs. The AO should have found it, who were selling agents or what is the marketing network through whom the assessee has made sales. Even if it has used the network of its working partner, then how the sales have been effected through that network. The assessee has debited expenditure of Rs.9.4 crors. One can appreciate that if there were only few parties, through them sales were made, then looking into that network and the expenses debited by the assessee, can it be assumed that such a sale target could not be achieved on an incurrence of Rs.9.5 crores. Let us be more specific. If an assessee sells hundred items produced by it, and those hundred items are being sold through four-five distributors. In other cases, an assessee is manufacturing 500 items, and selling its products through a number of distributions at micro level, their ratio of expenses would be totally different. The entity which is selling its products through four-five distributions would eventually incur less expenditure than the entities which is selling its products at micro level through large number of agents. It will end up incurring more expenditure. Thus, the angle of inquiry at the end of the AO should have been verification of distribution network, and thereafter to find out whether Rs.9.5 crores is sufficient amount to achieve sale target of Rs.624 cores. The AO has simply assumed existence of arrangement between the SPIL and the assessee, whereas, he appreciated the profit ratio shown by the assessee. He has not made reference to any evidence demonstrating such arrangement. He simply compared the expenses incurred by SPIL in the ratio of its turnover, and then assumed that expenses incurred by the assessee are on the lower side. Only evidence, he referred is the statement of two senior managerial officers recorded during the course of survey. Similarly, adjustment made in the case of SPI was not approved upto the level of ITAT, Amristar Bench. Therefore, we are of the view that the ld.CIT(A) has appreciated the facts in right perspective and rightly rejected existence of any arrangement, on the basis of which, it could be assumed that unreasonable profit has been resulted to the assessee. Group Appeals – Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd (Erstwhile M/s. Sun Pharma Sikkim) AY : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 27 33. The facts with regard to other items, i.e. Research and Development expenses, Royalty and trademark, brand, logo use, managerial fees are also identical. We have already taken note of the CIT(A)’s finding. The ld.CIT(A) while appreciating the concern of the AO has recorded a finding that the ld.AO failed to take into account the facts that drugs being manufactured by the assessee did not enjoy high brand value, but were prescription drugs where the quality was more important than the brand recall. According to the CIT(A), the AO has also disregarded the order passed by the ITAT, Amristar Bench, which has deleted such apportionment of expenditure in the case of SPI. Hence, the issue has been considered as covered by the order of the ITAT cited supra. 34. Next item which has been reduced from the eligible profit is an amount of Rs.48.40 crores. The AO was of the opinion that the assessee has used trademark, brand and logo of SPIL, therefore it should have paid royalty or any other charges to SPIL. He has estimated 8% of the turnover which ought to have been paid by the assessee to SPIL. This 8% has been estimated by the AO on the basis of his view taken in the case of SPI in the assessment years 2004-05 to 2010-11. The stand of the assessee before the Revenue authorities was that on the basis of supplementary partnership deed, SPIL has been given remuneration at the rate of 5% of the turnover. This mechanism has been provided as per supplementary deed. SPIL is a major working partner, who has provided all these facilities to the assessee, and remuneration at 5% of the turnover has been provided. This aspect has been considered by us as well as by the CIT(A) while considering the issues under the head Research and Development. In the case of SPI, this estimation of expenses under the head royalty at 8% of the turnover was deleted. We find that in the present appeals also ld.CIT(A) relied upon orders of the ITAT, Amristar Bench in ITA Nos.345, 346, 13, 129 & 130 and ITA No.391, 392, 18, 107 & 312. Copies of these orders have been placed in the paper book by the ld. counsel for the assessee. The finding of the ld.CIT(A) in this regard recorded in para 4.6.2 is worth to note, which reads as under: “4.6.2 On consideration of the facts related to the issue, I find that the disallowance has been made by the AO only on the basis of the similar disallowances made in the assessments in the case of SPI. Disallowance made under this head in the case of SPI-was deleted by the ITAT vide its orders no.ITA No.345, 346, 13, 129 & 130 and ITA No.391, 392, 18, 107 & 312. As observed before, the trade marks etc. belong to SPIL only and the appellant firm and SPI do not have any ownership rights in this regard. It is a fact that-the appellant firm is only manufacturing generic drugs and there, has been payment of remuneration @5% of turnover as per supplementary deed. Further, the impugned order does not bring out any fact to show that any amount over and above the remuneration was due from SPS to SPIL as royalty. For these reasons, I find the disallowance made by the AO cannot be sustained and the same is deleted. Accordingly, the ground raised by the appellant is allowed.” 35. After going through the above finding, we do not find any merit in this ground of appeal. We do not have any reason to deviate ourselves from the finding recorded by the ITAT, Amristar Bench which has been followed by the CIT(A). There is no justification at the end of the AO to estimate 8% of the turnover as fee required to be paid for use of logo, trademark etc. The assessee has already paid 5% of turnover as remuneration to SPIL for extending facility, sale and distribution, R&D, use of logo etc. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere in the finding of the ld.CIT(A) on this issue. 36. In the next ground, grievance of the Revenue is that the AO has reduced the eligible profit by a sum of Rs.12,11,15,682/- which was allowed to be payable to SPIL on account of management fee expenses. These expenses have been estimated by the AO at 2% of the turnover. He was of the view that since SPIL has provided consultancy, management and on other aspects, and therefore, the assessee should have paid fees to SPIL. Its profit are required to be reduced by 2% of the turnover on account of such expenditure. On appeal, the ld.CIT(A) did not approve this view point of the AO, basically, Group Appeals – Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd (Erstwhile M/s. Sun Pharma Sikkim) AY : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 28 for the reasons that this disallowance has been made on the basis of finding recorded in the case of SPI and that finding did not meet approval of ITAT in the case of SPI. 37. Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee relied upon the orders of the ITAT, Amristar Bench and Mumbai Bench and submitted that the assessee has already paid remuneration at 5% of the turnover which has been accounted in the accounts. No further adjustment was required. This stand of the assessee in the case of SPI has been approved. We find that the finding of the CIT(A) is on this line, and we do not see any reason to deviate from the order of the ITAT, Amristar Bench on this issue. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the contention of the Revenue, and view taken by the CIT(A) is being upheld. ******************* 42. In the next ground of appeal, grievance of the Revenue is that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of deduction under section 80IE(6) r.w.s. 80IA(10) on remuneration to working partner amounting to Rs.29,02,26,973/-. 43. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has executed a supplementary partnership deed on 15.3.2012 whereby it has provided that remuneration to the working partner, SPIL would be granted at 5% of the turnover. The assessee has debited this amount to an allowable expenditure and reduced it from deduction admissible under section 80IE. The ld.AO has disallowed the claim of expenditure and added back to this to the total income of the assessee. He further disallowed deduction admissible to the assessee on this amount. The ld.CIT(A) has deleted this disallowance for two reasons. She observed that the supplementary deed was a contract amongst the partners to decide the terms either prospective or retrospective. Therefore, remuneration to the partners cannot be disallowed by the AO with help of section 40b of the Act. Explanation 4 to section 40b talks of working partner to whom remuneration can be paid. Apart from the above, ld.CIT(A) further observed that in a revised return assessee itself disallowed this expenditure suomoto. Once this amount has been added back, then the AO is not justified to add back it again. The finding of the ld.CIT(A) in para 4.10.2 reads as under: “4.10.2 On consideration of the facts it is seen that the appellant had debited remuneration of Rs.29,02,26,973/- as quantified by the supplementary deed of partnership dated 15th March, 2012 but that the same has been disallowed suo- motu in the revised return / -.statement of income in view of Explanation 4 to S. 40(b) and accordingly the profits of the business were increased to that extent. However, the AO, relying on past assessments in the case of SPI, disallowed the same. In view of the fact that the appellant has already added back this amount in the revised computation, the disallowance made by the AO is deleted and the ground raised by the appellant is allowed.” 44. After going through the above finding, we do not find any reason to interfere in this ground of appeal. It is rejected. 12.1 Before us, no material has been placed on record by the Revenue to demonstrate that the decision of Tribunal as discussed above has been set aside / stayed or overruled by the Higher Judicial Authorities. Before us, the learned DR not placed any material on record to point out any distinguishing feature in the facts of the case for the year under consideration and that of earlier year nor has placed any contrary binding decision in its support. Thus, respectfully following the Group Appeals – Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd (Erstwhile M/s. Sun Pharma Sikkim) AY : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 29 order this tribunal in the own case of assessee, we uphold the finding of the learned CIT(A). Thus, the ground of appeal raised by the Revenue is hereby dismissed. 13. In the Result appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed. ITA No. 2596/Mum/2018 an appeal by the Assessee – A.Y. 2013-14 (Sun Pharma Sikkim) 14. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “The Appellant submits the following grounds, which are without prejudice to one another: 1. Re: Disallowance of deduction u/s 80IE(6) r.w.s. 80IA(10) in respect of alleged price difference Rs.1,25,288/- on purchase from Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited (SPIL) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT (A) erred m upholding the invoking of the provisions of S.80IE(6) r.w.s. 80IA(10) and thereby upholding the disallowance of Rs.1,25,288/- on account of purchase of materials by the Appellant from SPIL. 2. Re: Assessing the interest & other income under the head Income from other sources' Rs. 12,49,847/-. (a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and m law, the Learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the assessment of interest on bank F.D., interest on loan to employees and Interest on income tax refund under the head 'Income from other sources' instead of assessing the same under the head 'Profits and gains of business'. (b) The learned CIT (A) also erred in not appreciating that all the above receipts/incomes are arising from business activities and hence cleaved from the business of industrial undertaking. 15. The first issued raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowances of deduction under section 80IA(10) of the Act for Rs. 1,25,288/- after invoking the provision of section 80IE(6) of the Act. 16. At the outset we note that the learned AR for the assessee before us submitted that he has been instructed by the assessee not to press the impugned ground of appeal due to smallness of amount involved in dispute. Hence, the ground raised by the assessee is dismissed as not pressed. Group Appeals – Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd (Erstwhile M/s. Sun Pharma Sikkim) AY : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 30 17. The next issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the AO treating interest and other income as income from other sources. 17.1 At the outset we note that the issues raised by the assessee in its grounds of appeal for the AY 2013-14 are identical to the issues raised by the assessee in ITA No. 3980/Mum/2017 for the assessment year 2012-13. Therefore, the findings given in ITA No. 3980/Mum/2017 shall also be applicable for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2013-14. The appeal of the assessee for the assessment 2012-13 has been decided by us vide paragraph Nos. 4 to 4.1 of this order where the issue of interest and other income held against the assessee. The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings for the assessment year 2012-13 shall also be applied for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2013-14. Hence, the ground of appeal filed by the assessee is hereby dismissed. 18. In the result of appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed. ITA No. 1468/Ahd/2018 an appeal by the Revenue – A.Y. 2013-14 (Sun Pharma Sikkim) 19. The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal: “1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in allowing relief to the assessee and in not confirming the additions made by the AO on these issues. 2.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. C.I.T. (A) erred in holding that rejection of books of accounts in this case is not legally tenable without appreciating the facts and reasons mentioned by the AO in the assessment order. 2.2 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. C.I.T. (A) erred in not upholding the A.O's action of rejection of books of accounts without appreciating that the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings did not furnish the details called for, and hence considering the facts of the case, the A.O. correctly rejected the books of accounts of the assessee, 3.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in allowing the assessee's ground on disallowance of deduction u/s 80IE of Rs.264,48,12,798/- without appreciating the facts and reasons mentioned by the AO in the assessment order. Group Appeals – Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd (Erstwhile M/s. Sun Pharma Sikkim) AY : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 31 3.2 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in allowing the assessee's ground on disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB of Rs.264,48,12,798/- without appreciating the fact that the assessee firm was formed by the splitting up and reconstruction of the existing business of SP1, and the condition that used machinery is less than 20% of the stipulated limit, has not been fulfilled by the assessee. 3.3 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld, C.I..T. (A) erred in holding that the claim of the appellant in respect of deduction u/s. 80IE of the Act is allowable without appreciating that in the absence of proper details and bills, it could not be ascertained as to whether plant and machinery were new and not used earlier, and without appreciating that plant and machinery transferred by Sun Pharma Industries to Sun Pharma Sikkim was used by Sun Pharma Industries prior to put to use by Sun Pharma Sikkim, and hence such plant and machinery could not be regarded as new plant and machinery. 3.4 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. C.I.T. (A) erred in holding that the claim of the appellant in respect of deduction u/s. 80IE of the Act is allowable without appreciating that mere submission of journal entries generated in computer cannot be treated as authentic document for having purchased plant and machinery and accordingly the A.O. had clearly established that the assessee firm i.e. M/s. Sun Pharma Sikkim was constituted by reconstruction of existing business of M/s. Sun Pharma Industries. 3.5 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. C.I.T. (A) erred in holding that the claim of the appellant in respect of deduction u/s. 80IE is within the purview of the provisions of the Act without appreciating that the assessee could not substantiate its claim with verifiable and reliable documents and failed in establishing that it had satisfied all the conditions laid down in section 80IE, and accordingly the A.O. had correctly disallowed deduction u/s. 80IE of Rs. 264,48,12,735/-. 3.6 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. C.I.T. (A) erred in holding that the claim of the appellant in respect of deduction u/s. 80IE of the Act is within the purview of the provisions of the Act without appreciating the A.O's finding on the issue of period of use & depreciation of plant and machinery used by Sun Pharma Industries & M/s. Sun Pharma Sikkim. 4.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. C .I.T. (A) erred in deleting the disallowance of deduction u/s 80IE(6) r.w.s. 80IA(10) on apportionment of selling and distribution expenses of Rs.48,93,00,000/- incurred by the working partner without appreciating the fact that all the sales and distribution expenses were debited to SPIL and no allocation was made to SPI and SPS units, as has been revealed during the proceedings of survey action u/s. 133A. 4.2 On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. C.I.T. (A) erred in deleting the disallowance of deduction u/s. 80IE in respect of selling and distribution expenses without appreciating the A.O's finding on supplementary partnership deed and without appreciating that selling and distribution expenses cannot be considered in conjunction with remuneration and such charging of remuneration was not in accordance with the spirit of section 40(b) of the Act. 5.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. C.I.T. (A) erred in deleting the disallowance of deduction u/s 80IE(6) r.w.s. 80IA(10) on apportionment of research and development expenses of Rs. 21,45,000/- incurred by the working partner without appreciating the fact that expenditure related to R&D was debited only in the hands of SPIL but no allocation was made to SPI and SPS units, as has been revealed during the proceedings of survey action u/s 133A, and the working of allocation of R&D activity on the basis of turnover in the ratio of 3:1 is justifiable and reasonable. Group Appeals – Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd (Erstwhile M/s. Sun Pharma Sikkim) AY : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 32 5.2 On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of deduction u/s 80IE(6) r.w.s. 80IA(10) in respect of research and development expenses without appreciating that R & D work requires specialized skill and knowledge, and consequently payment towards R & D activity cannot be termed as remuneration but would be termed as professional payment. 6.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned C1T(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of deduction u/s 80IE(6) r.w.s. 80IA(10) on apportionment of royalty expenses of Rs. 29,80,00,000/- without appreciating the fact that the assessee was using trademarks, brands and logo of SPIL for which neither any fee or royalty is charged and hence disallowance made @ 8% of sales (as in SPI) adopted by the Assessing Officer is justifiable and reasonable. 6.2 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of deduction u/s 80IE(6) r.w.s. 80IA(10) on apportionment of royalty expenses without appreciating that the assessee in the guise of payment in the nature of remuneration for technical services of the nature of royalty adopted a device to inflate its non taxable income as is evident from the fact that assessee itself had admitted that it had included compensation for use of trademark, brand name etc as remuneration and that compensation could not be equated with remuneration. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law The learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of deduction u/s 80IE(6) r.w.s. 80IA(10) on apportionment of management fees of Rs. 18,62,00,000 without appreciating the fact that the affairs of the assessee were managed by SPIL, the working partner, and nothing is paid or charged by SPIL and hence disallowance made 5% of turnover adopted by the Assessing Officer is justifiable and reasonable. 8.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of deduction u/s 80IE(6) r.w.s. 80IA(10) on remuneration to working partner of Rs. 18,55,46,564/- without appreciating the fact that the assessee had claimed remuneration paid to SPIL on the basis of supplementary deed of partnership dated 15-03-2012 and the same was not allowable in light of the provisions of section 40(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961," 8.2 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of deduction u/s 80IE(6) r.w.s. 80IA(10) on remuneration to working partner of Rs. 18,55,46,564/- without appreciating the A.O's finding in the assessment order particularly with regard to assessee's reliance on supplementary partnership deed for inflating its profit for claiming higher deduction u/s 80IE(6) r.w.s. 80IA(10) of the Act.” 20. The first issue raised by the Revenue is that the learned CIT(A) erred in not upholding the action of the AO for rejecting the books of accounts. 21. At the outset, we note that the issues raised by the Revenue in its grounds of appeal for the AY 2013-14 are identical to the issues raised by the Revenue in ITA No. 1397/Ahd/2017 for the assessment year 2012-13. Therefore, the findings given in ITA No. 1397/Ahd/2017 shall also be applicable for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2013-14. The ground of appeal of the Revenue for the assessment 2012-13 has been decided by us vide paragraph Nos. 10 to 10.3 of Group Appeals – Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd (Erstwhile M/s. Sun Pharma Sikkim) AY : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 33 this order against the Revenue. The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings for the assessment year 2012-13 shall also be applied for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2013-14. Hence, the ground of appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed. 22. The next issue raised by the Revenue is that the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of deduction claimed under section 80IE of the Act for Rs. 264,48,12,798/- only. 23. At the outset, we note that the issues raised by the Revenue in its grounds of appeal for the AY 2013-14 are identical to the issues raised by the Revenue in ITA No. 1397/Ahd/2017 for the assessment year 2012-13. Therefore, the findings given in ITA No. 1397/Ahd/2017 shall also be applicable for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2013-14. The ground of appeal of the Revenue for the assessment 2012-13 has been decided by us vide paragraph Nos. 8 to 8.1 of this order against the Revenue. The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings for the assessment year 2012-13 shall also be applied for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2013-14. Hence, the ground of appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed. 24. The next issue raised by the Revenue are that the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowances of deduction u/s 80IE of the Act made on account of apportionment of selling & distribution expenses, R&D expenses, royalty expenses, managerial fee and remuneration to partner SPIL. 25. At the outset we note that the issues raised by the Revenue in its grounds of appeal for the AY 2013-14 are identical to the issues raised by the Revenue in ITA No. 1397/Ahd/2017 for the assessment year 2012-13. Therefore, the findings given in ITA No. 1397/Ahd/2017 shall also be applicable for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2013-14. The ground of appeal of the Revenue for the assessment 2012-13 has been decided by us vide paragraph nos. 12 to 12.1 of this order against the Revenue. The learned AR and the DR also agreed that Group Appeals – Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd (Erstwhile M/s. Sun Pharma Sikkim) AY : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 34 whatever will be the findings for the assessment year 2012-13 shall also be applied for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2013-14. Hence, the ground of appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed. 26. In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed. ITA No. 3507/Mum/2016 an appeal by the Assesse – A.Y. 2011-12 (Sun Pharma Industries) 27. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The orders of the lower authorities are arbitrary, not based on proper evidences, without proper reasons, invalid and also bad in law. 2. Re: "Initial assessment year" u/s 80-IB(14)(c) read with sec. 80-IB(2)(ii) (a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as Learned CIT (A)], while allowing the deduction under section 80-IB(4) in respect of profit from industrial undertaking at Dadra, erred by considering the previous year as 10th year of operation as against the assessee's claim of 8th year of operation. (b) The learned CIT (A) has not appreciated the facts in proper perspective and erred in not appreciating the legal position that, for the purpose of section 80-IB, the initial assessment year is to be reckoned from the date of commencement of "commercial production" and not from any earlier date. Holding the year under appeal as the 10th year for claiming deduction u/s 80IB(4) of the Act being bad in law, the claim of the appellant treating the year as the 8th year from the beginning with the initial assessment year needs to be allowed/accepted. 3. Re: Invoking the provisions of S. 80IB(13) r.w.s. 80IA(10): On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the invoking of the provisions of S. 80IB(13) r.w.s. 80IA(10) for the purpose of computing the deduction u/s. 80IB. Re: Disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB/10B in respect of interest income on staff advances - Rs.71,284/- (Jammu Unit Rs.11,572/- and Dadra Unit Rs.59,712/- (a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the disallowance u/s 80IB/10B in respect of and to the extent of interest on loan to employees amounting to Rs.71,284/- holding them to be not derived from the industrial undertaking. (b) The learned CIT (A) also erred in not appreciating that the section 80IB/10B grants deduction in respect of 'any profits from any business' of the industrial undertaking. ] 5. Re: Disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB in respect of interest income- Rs. 2,08,573/- on bank FDR (Jammu Unit Rs.1,59,673/-; Dadra Unit Rs.1,632/-and Dadra EOU Unit Rs.47,269/-). (a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the disallowance u/s 80-IB in respect of and to the extent of interest on FDRs amounting to Rs.2,08,573/- holding them to be not derived from the industrial undertaking. Group Appeals – Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd (Erstwhile M/s. Sun Pharma Sikkim) AY : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 35 (b) The learned CIT (A) also erred in not appreciating that the section 80IB grants deduction in respect of 'any profits from any business' of the industrial undertaking. 6. Re: Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c). On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT (A) erred in not striking down the initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c). 28. The issue raised by the assessee in ground no. 1 of its appeal is general in nature and not requiring any separate adjudication. Hence, the same is dismissed being infructuous. 29. The next issue raised by the assessee vide ground No. 2 of its appeal is that the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the year under consideration as 10 th year of claim u/s 80IB(4) of the Act with regard to Dadra undertaking against the 8 th year claimed. 30. At the outset we find that the issue has been decided against the assessee by the coordinate bench of Amritsar Tribunal in ITA 184/ASR/2009 for A.Y. 2005- 06 where the coordinate bench held the A.Y. 2002-03 as initial year of claim u/s 80IB(4) of the Act for Dadra business undertaking instead of initial year as A.Y. 2004-05 claimed by the assessee. The finding of the Amritsar tribunal has been followed in A.Y. 2004-05, 2006-07 to 2010-11. Therefore following the same we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned CIT(A). Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed. 31. The next issue raised by the assessee vide ground no. 3 of its appeal is that the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding invocation of section 80IB(13) r.w.s 80IA(10) of the Act for purpose of computing deduction under section 80IB of the Act. 32. At the outset we note the learned AR for the assessee before us submitted he has been instructed by the assessee not to press this issue. Hence, the ground raised by the assessee is dismissed as not pressed. Group Appeals – Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd (Erstwhile M/s. Sun Pharma Sikkim) AY : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 36 33. The next issue raised by the assessee vide ground Nos. 4 and 5 of its appeal is that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the exclusion of interest income from computation of deduction u/s 80IB/10Bof the Act. 33.1 The assessee during the year has shown interest income received on account advance given to the staff for Rs. 11,572/- and Rs. 71,284/- in Jammu unit and Dadra unit eligible under section 80IB/10B of the Act. Similarly, the assessee also earned interest income on FD maintained with bank for Rs. 2,08,573/- only. However, the AO found that such interest income is not arising out of business of undertaking eligible for deduction and this view has been consistently taken by his predecessor. Thus, the AO excluded the same from the computation of deduction u/s 80IB/10B of the Act. 33.2 On appeal by the Assessee the learned CIT(A) also confirmed the view of the AO. 33.3 Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A) the assessee is on appeal before us. 33.4 The learned AR before us submitted that the issue on hand is covered against the assessee by the order of the tribunal in own case for A.Y. 2010-11 bearing ITA No. 2465/Mum/2014. 33.5 On the other learned DR vehemently supported the order of the authority below. 34. We have heard the rival contention of both the parties and perused the material available on record. We found that the issue on hand is covered against the assessee by the order of the coordinate bench of Amritsar Tribunal in the own case of the assessee for AY 2004-05 followed in subsequent years being AY 2006- 07 to 2010-11. The relevant finding of the coordinate bench in ITA No. 2465/Mum/2014 reads as under: “23. Ground No IV pertains to adjustment of delayed payments, staff advances and statutory/bank. The issue regarding interest on delayed payments from customers is covered in favour of the assessee. But the issues regarding interest on staff advances and Group Appeals – Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd (Erstwhile M/s. Sun Pharma Sikkim) AY : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 37 FDRs are covered against the assessee by the orders of the Amritsar Tribunal passed in assessee's own cases pertaining to the financial years 2004-05, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008- 09 and 2009-10. The relevant paras of the order passed by the Amritsar tribunal are reproduced as under:- ''51. As - regards ground No 3 of the Revenue, regarding disallowance of deduction under section 80-16 in respect of delayed payments from M/s Aditya Medisales Ltd. Amounting to Rs.48,20,32,772/-, the facts are identical to the facts in assessee's own case for the assessment year 2004-05 decided by us hereinabove. Following the same/ this ground of the Revenue is dismissed," "54. As regards ground No 5&6 of the assessee with respect to the interest on FDR amounting to Rs. 3,27,5997- (correct figure Rs. 2,27,599/-) and loan to employees with regard to disallowance of deduction u/s 80-IB, the facts of the issues in hand are identical to the facts decided by the tribunal in assessee's own case dated 11.06.210 in ITA No 184(Asr)/2009for the assessment year 2005-06. Following the same, the ground No 5&6 of the assessee are dismissed." 24. Following the orders of the decisions of the Amritsar Tribunal in the identical issues, we allow the assessee's claim of deduction under section 80-IB of the Act in respect of interest on delayed payments in question and direct the AO to delete the additions. However, we disallow the assessee's claim of deductions in respect of interest on staff advances & statutory/bank deposits.” 34.1 Thus, respectfully following the consistent view of Amritsar tribunal in the own case of the assessee, we do not find infirmity in the finding of the learned CIT(A). Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed. 35. In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed. ITA No. 4096/Mum/2016 an appeal by the Revenue – A.Y. 2011-12 (Sun Pharma Industries) 36. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in holding that the industrial undertaking of the assessee firm at Dadra was not formed by the splitting up or reconstruction of the existing business of M/s. Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in holding that the rejection of books of accounts of the assessee by the AO was not sustainable." 3. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in deleting the disallowance made by the AO on account of deduction u/s 80IB in respect of Dadra Unit – Rs.8,30,03,087/-. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in deleting the disallowance made by the AO on account of deduction u/s 80IB (13) r.w.s 80IA (10) in respect of notional Royalty expenses (Jammu Unit and Dadra Unit). 5. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in deleting the disallowance made by the AO on account of deduction u/s 80IB (13) r.w.s 80IA (10) in respect of notional Management fees (Jammu Unit and Dadra Unit). Group Appeals – Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd (Erstwhile M/s. Sun Pharma Sikkim) AY : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 38 6. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals] erred in deleting the disallowance made by the AO on account of the deduction u/s 801B (13) r.w.s 80IA (10) in respect of notional Selling and Distribution expenses incurred by the working partner (Jammu Unit and Dadra Unit]. 7. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in deleting the disallowance made by the AO on account of the deduction u/s 80IB in respect of Central Excise Duty refund. 8. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in deleting the disallowance made by the AO on account of the deduction u/s 80IB in respect of interest on delayed payments. 9. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in deleting the disallowance made by the AO on account of remuneration to working partner from profits for computing the deduction u/s 80IB u/s 40b. 10. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in deleting the disallowance made by the AO on account of the deduction u/s 80IB (13] in respect of disallowances made u/s 43B. 11. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in deleting the disallowance made by the AO on account of deduction u/s 80IB (13) r.w.s 80IA (10) in respect of R&D Expenses incurred by working Partner.” 37. The first issue raised by the Revenue vide ground no. 1 and 3 of its appeal is that the learned CIT(A) erred in holding that Dadra unit was not formed by splitting of existing business, in result, deleting the disallowances of deduction u/s 80IB for Rs. 8,30,03,087/-only. 37.1 The AO consistently from AY 2005-06 to the year under consideration i.e. A.Y. 2011-12 held that industrial undertaking of the appellant firm at Dadra claimed as eligible unit under section 80IB of the Act was formed by the splitting of existing business of M/s Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. Thus, the assessee is not eligible to claim deduction u/s 80IB of the Act. 37.2 On appeal by the assessee, the view taken by the AO has been set aside by the learned CIT(A) in favour of the assessee. 37.3 Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us. 37.4 The learned DR before us vehemently supported the stand of the AO by reiterating the findings contained in the assessment order which we have already Group Appeals – Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd (Erstwhile M/s. Sun Pharma Sikkim) AY : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 39 adverted to in the preceding paragraph. Therefore we are not repeating the same for the sake of brevity. 37.5 On the other hand learned AR before us submitted issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the order of this Tribunal in the own case of the assessee for AY 2010-11 bearing ITA No. 2465/Mum/2014. 38. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. We found that the issue on hand is covered in favour of the assessee by the order of the coordinate bench of Mumbai Tribunal in own case of the assesse for A.Y. 2010-11 bearing ITA No. 2465/Mum/2014 where the coordinate bench by following the order of Amritsar tribunal in own case of the assessee for A.Y. 2005-06 to A.Y. 2009-10 decided the issue in favour of the assessee. The relevant finding of the coordinate bench in ITA No. 2465/Mum/ 2014 reads as under: “15. So far as the department's appeal is concerned, ground No. I(a)&(b) of the appeal is covered in favour of the assessee by the order of the Amritsar Bench of the Tribunal passed in the assessee's own case ITA No 184/Asr/20097 pertaining to the financial year 2005-06. The identical ground i.e., Ground No 2(b) of the said appeal was that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in concurring with the findings of the assessing officer that the industrial undertaking of the appellant firm at Dader was formed by splitting up or reconstruction of the existing business of M/s Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd and the relevant paras of the findings are reproduced below:- "24.1 In our considered opinion, these two factors are irrelevant Mere fact that production of SPIL has gone down does not lead us to conclude that thereby the appellant's business has borne out of splitting or reconstruction of the business. As to the second aspect, the fact that SPIL is a major partner is not a matter of dispute but as pointed out above, this is a matter of no consequence. Accordingly, Ground No 2(b) of the appeal is allowed and we hold that the business of the appellant assessee has not arisen from any splitting up or reconstruction of existing business". "43.3 Keeping in view the facts and circumstances discussed above, we are of the considered opinion that undertaking formed by SPIL at Dadra was qualified for deduction under section 80IB and the first year is taken as assessment year 2002- 03 and the year under consideration become the fourth year of the undertaking and accordingly the benefit of deduction under section 80-IB needs to be allowed as per the provisions of the section and Circular of CBDT, referred to hereinabove”. 16. The said decision has been further followed by the Amritsar Bench in the subsequent years also in the assessee's own case. We, therefore, respectfully following the decisions of the ITAT Amritsar, dismiss this ground of appeal of the Revenue and decide the issue in favour of the assessee.” Group Appeals – Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd (Erstwhile M/s. Sun Pharma Sikkim) AY : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 40 38.1 Thus, respectfully following the consistent view of tribunal in the own case of the assessee we do not find any infirmity in the finding of the learned CIT(A). Hence, the ground of appeal raised by the Revenue is hereby dismissed. 39. The next issue raised by the Revenue vide ground no. 2 of its appeal is that the learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the books of account rejected by the AO is not sustainable. 40. At the outset we note that the issues raised by the Revenue in its grounds of appeal is identical to the issues raised by the Revenue in case of sister concern of the assessee namely Sun Pharma Sikkim bearing ITA No. 1397/Ahd/2017 for the assessment year 2012-13. Therefore, the findings given in ITA No. 1397/Ahd/2017 shall also be applicable for the ground of appeal raised by the Revenue in case of assessee on hand i.e. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries. The ground of appeal of the Revenue for Sun Pharma Sikkim bearing ITA No. 1397/Ahd/2017 has been decided by us vide paragraph nos. 10 to 10.3 of this order against the Revenue. The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings for Sun Pharma Sikkim bearing ITA No. 1397/Ahd/2017 shall also be applied for the ground of appeal raised by the Revenue for the assessee on hand. Hence, the ground of appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed. 41. The next issue raised by the Revenue vide ground Nos. 4 to 6 of its appeal is that the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the allocation of notional royalty expenses, managerial fee, selling and distribution expenses to Jammu and Dadra unit by invoking the provision of section 80IB(13) r.w.s. 80IA(10) of the Act. 41.1 At the outset we find that identical allocation of notional royalty fee, managerial fee and selling distribution expenses was made by the AO by invoking the provisions of section 80IB(13) r.w.s. 80IA(10) of the Act to the eligible unit of the assessee being Jammu and Dadra unit by the AO in AY 2010-11 and the issue reached to Mumbai Tribunal in ITA No. 2465/Mum/2014 where the coordinate Group Appeals – Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd (Erstwhile M/s. Sun Pharma Sikkim) AY : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 41 bench by following the order of the Amritsar tribunal in case of the assessee for A.Y. 2005-06 to 2009-10 decided the issue against the Revenue. The relevant finding of the Mumbai bench for A.Y. 2010-11 reads as under: “18. Ground No II(c)&(d) pertain to deleting adjustments made on account of royalty fees and notional management fees for Jammu and Dadra units. The Amritsar Bench of the ITAT has decided the identical issues in favour of the assessee and against Revenue in assessee's own case for the assessment year 2005-06. The operative part of the order is reproduced as under:- "16.2 Therefore, in view of our decision hereinabove with respect of selling and distribution expenses, the remaining disallowance of expenses of royalty (of 8% of the turnover) of Rs. 14,15,34,442/- and management fee (of 1% of the turnover) of Rs.1,76,91805/- are also directed to be deleted, as the same has been notionally considered by the AO which in our view, is incorrect and not justified. Thus, ground No. 5 of the assessee is allowed and ground No. 2 of the Revenue is dismissed.' 19. The said decision was followed by the IT AT Amritsar in assessee's own case pertaining to the subsequent assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, and 2009-10. Following the said order, the ITAT Amritsar, in assessee's own case for the assessment year 2009-10, issued directions to the AO to delete the disallowance in respect of royalty, management fees and selling and distribution expenses. Therefore, we follow the decision of the ITAT Amritsar and dismiss ground No II(c)&(d) of appeal of the Revenue.” 41.2 Thus, respectfully following the consistent view of Amritsar & Mumbai Tribunal in the own case of the assessee for A.Y. 2005-06 to A.Y. 2010-11, we do not find infirmity in the finding of the learned CIT(A). Hence the ground of appeal raised by the Revenue is hereby dismissed. 42. The next issue raised by the Revenue vide ground No. 7 of its appeal is that the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowances/exclusion of excise duty refund from computation of deduction u/s 80IB of the Act. 42.1 During the year, the assessee received refund of central excise duty of Rs. 1,53,23,302/- in Jammu unit which was included in the income for the purpose of deduction u/s 80IB of the Act. However the AO held that the refund of central excise is not derived from the business activity of the eligible undertaking. In holding so, the AO given reasoning at length in his order and relied on various case laws. Thus the AO excluded/disallowed the same from the computation of deduction. Group Appeals – Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd (Erstwhile M/s. Sun Pharma Sikkim) AY : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 42 42.2 On appeal by the assessee, the learned CIT(A) following the order of the Amritsar Tribunal in the own case of the assessee for AY 2004-05 to 2008-09 deleted the disallowance made by the AO. 42.3 Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A) the Revenue is in appeal before us. 42.4 The learned DR before us vehemently supported the stand of the AO by reiterating the findings contained in the assessment order which we have already adverted to in the preceding paragraph. Therefore we are not repeating the same for the sake of brevity. 42.5 On the other hand learned AR before us submitted issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the order of the tribunal in the own case of the assessee for AY 2010-11 bearing ITA No. 2465/Ahd/2014. 43. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. At the outset, we find that the issue on hand is covered in favour of the assessee by the order of the coordinate bench of Mumbai Tribunal in own case of the assessee for A.Y. 2010-11 bearing ITA No. 2465/Mum/2014 where the coordinate bench by following the order of Amritsar tribunal in own case of the assessee for A.Y. 2005-06 to A.Y. 2009-10 decided the issue in favour of the assessee. The relevant finding of the coordinate bench in ITA No. 2465/Mum/2014 reads as under: “22. Ground No.III pertains to disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB on account of Central Excise Duty refund. This issue has also been decided in favour of the assessee by the Amritsar Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2005-06 in ITA No.184(Asr)/2009, by following the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of J&K in case of Shree Balaji Alloys vs. CIT 333 ITR 335 (J&K). The said decision was followed by the Amritsar Tribunal in the assessee’s own case in the subsequent assessment years. We, therefore, respectfully following the decision of the ITAT Amritsar, dismiss this ground of the appeal of the Revenue.” Group Appeals – Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd (Erstwhile M/s. Sun Pharma Sikkim) AY : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 43 43.1 Thus, respectfully following the consistent view of tribunal in own case of the assessee we do not find infirmity in the finding of the learned CIT(A). Hence the ground of appeal raised by the Revenue is hereby dismissed. 44. The next issue raised by the Revenue vide ground No. 8 of its appeal is that the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowances/exclusion of interest on delayed payment from computation of deduction u/s 80IB of the Act. 44.1 During the year the assessee received interest of Rs. 1,92,60,614/- which was included in the income for the purpose of deduction u/s 80IB of the Act. However the AO held that the interest income cannot be held as income as derived from the industrial undertaking. Thus, the AO excluded/disallowed the same from the computation of deduction. 44.2 On appeal by the assessee, the learned CIT(A) following the order of the Amritsar Tribunal in own case of the assessee for A.Y. 2004-05 to 2008-09 deleted the disallowances made by the AO. 44.3 Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A) the Revenue is in appeal before us. 44.4 The learned DR before us vehemently supported the stand of the AO by reiterating the findings contained in the assessment order which we have already adverted to in the preceding paragraph. Therefore we are not repeating the same for the sake of brevity. 44.5 On the other hand learned AR before us submitted issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the order of the tribunal in own case of the assessee for A.Y. 2010-11 bearing ITA No. 2465/Ahd/2014. 45. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. At the outset, we find that the issue on hand is Group Appeals – Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd (Erstwhile M/s. Sun Pharma Sikkim) AY : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 44 covered in favour of the assessee by the order of the coordinate bench of Mumbai Tribunal in own case of the assessee for AY 2010-11 bearing ITA No. 2465/Mum/2014 where the coordinate bench by following the order of Amritsar Tribunal in own case of the assessee for AY 2005-06 to AY 2009-10 decided the issue in favour of the assessee. The relevant finding of the coordinate bench in ITA No. 2465/Mum2014 reads as under: 23. Ground No IV pertains to adjustment of delayed payments, staff advances and statutory/bank. The issue regarding interest on delayed payments from customers is covered in favour of the assessee. But the issues regarding interest on staff advances and FDRs are covered against the assessee by the orders of the Amritsar Tribunal passed in assessee's own cases pertaining to the financial years 2004-05, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008- 09 and 2009-10. The relevant paras of the order passed by the Amritsar tribunal are reproduced as under:- "51. As regards ground No .3 of the Revenue, regarding disallowance of deduction under section 80-IB in respect of delayed payments from M/s Aditya Medisales Ltd. Amounting to Rs. 48,20,32,772/-, the facts are identical to the facts in assessee's own case for the assessment year 2004-05 decided by us hereinabove. Following the same, this ground of the Revenue is dismissed." "54. As regards ground No 5&6 of the assessee with respect to the interest on FDR amounting to Rs. 3,27,599/- (correct figure Rs. 2,27,599/-) and loan to employees with regard to disallowance of deduction u/s 80-IB, the facts of the issues In hand are identical to the facts decided by the tribunal in assessee's own case dated 11.06.210 in ITA No 184(Asr)/2009 for the assessment year 2005-06. Following the same, the ground No 5&6 of the assessee are dismissed." 24. Following the orders of the decisions of the Amritsar Tribunal in the identical issues, we allow the assessee's claim of deduction under section 80-IB of the Act in respect of interest on delayed payments in question and direct the AO to delete the additions. However, we disallow the assessee's claim of deductions in respect of interest on staff advances & statutory/bank deposits.” 45.1 Thus respectfully following the consistent view of Tribunal in the own case of the assessee, we do not find any infirmity in the finding of the learned CIT(A). Hence, the ground of appeal raised by the Revenue is hereby dismissed. 46. The next issue raised by the Revenue vide ground No. 9 of its appeal is that the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of the deduction under section 80IB of the Act on account of remuneration paid to partner. 46.1 During the year, the assessee firm claimed deduction of remuneration paid to partner for Rs. 6,19,63,741/- which was claimed in Jammu unit, Dadra unit as well as in Dadra EOU unit in following manner: Group Appeals – Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd (Erstwhile M/s. Sun Pharma Sikkim) AY : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 45 Dadra Unit Jammu Unit Dadra-EOU Remuneration to Partners u/s 40(b) Rs.2,02,55,937/- Rs.3,38,38,383/- Rs.78,69,391/- *Disallowances u/s 43B on a/c of earned leave & Bonus Rs.4,29,322/- Rs.1,22,763/- Rs.30,095/- Total Rs.2,06,85,259 Rs.3,39,61,146/- Rs.78,99,486/- (* the assessee has already added back the same in its computation.) 46.2 The AO disallowed the deduction of partner remuneration under section 40(b)(i) of the Act for reason that remuneration was not paid to individual partner. Thus the profit of eligible unit being Dadra and Jammu unit increased due to disallowances of remuneration expenses. However the AO also excluded the amount of addition on account of partner’s remuneration disallowances from computation of deduction under section 80IB of the Act on reasoning that the disallowances of remuneration have no direct nexus with the activity of industrial undertaking. 46.3 On appeal by the assessee learned CIT(A) following the order of the Amritsar Tribunal in own case of the assessee for AY 2004-05 to 2008-09 deleted the disallowances made by the AO under section 80IB of the Act. 46.4 Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us. 46.5 The learned DR before us vehemently supported the stand of the AO by reiterating the findings contained in the assessment order which we have already adverted to in the preceding paragraph. Therefore we are not repeating the same for the sake of brevity. 46.6 On the other hand learned AR before us submitted issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the order of the Tribunal in own case of the assessee for A.Y. 2010-11 bearing ITA No. 2465/Ahd/2014. 47. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. At the outset, we find that the issue on hand is covered in favour of the assessee by the order of the coordinate bench of Mumbai Group Appeals – Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd (Erstwhile M/s. Sun Pharma Sikkim) AY : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 46 Tribunal in own case of the assessee for A.Y. 2010-11 bearing ITA No. 2465/Mum/2014 where the coordinate bench by following the order of Amritsar tribunal in own case of the assessee for A.Y. 2005-06 to A.Y. 2009-10 decided the issue in favour of the assessee. The relevant finding of the coordinate bench in ITA No. 2465/Mum/2014 reads as under: “26. Ground No V of the Revenue appeal, which pertains to adjustment on account of remuneration u/s 40(b) of the Act, is also covered in favour of the assessee by the orders of the Amritsar Bench passed in assessee's own case pertaining to the assessment years 2004-05, 2005-06 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10. The Amritsar Tribunal has decided the identical issue in favour of the assessee in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2009-10 following the decision passed in assessee's own case for the assessment year 2004-05. Ground No 4&5 of the Revenue appeal in the assessee's own case for the assessment year 2004-05 was pertaining to higher deduction u/s 80IB on account of disallowance of remuneration u/s 40(b) and disallowance of deduction u/s 43B respectively. The relevant para of the order of the Tribunal reads as under:- " Since the facts relating to these issues are identical to the facts in assessee's own case for the assessment year 2004-05 decided by us hereinabove, following the same, ground No.4&5 of the Revenue are dismissed.” 27. Respectfully following the findings of the Amritsar Tribunal we, dismiss this ground of appeal of the Revenue.” 47.1 Thus, respectfully following the consistent view of Tribunal in the own case of the assessee, we do not find any infirmity in the finding of the learned CIT(A). Hence the ground of appeal raised by the Revenue is hereby dismissed. 48. The next issue raised by the Revenue vide ground No. 10 of its appeal is that the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of deduction under section 80IB on account disallowances of expenses under section 43B of the Act. 48.1 During the assessment proceeding the AO disallowed the deduction of earned leave for Rs. 5,82,180/- under the provision of section 43B of the Act by holding that the same has not been paid till the due date of furnishing the return of income. Thus the profit of eligible unit being Dadra and Jammu unit increased due to disallowances of the said expense. However, the AO also excluded the amount of addition on account above disallowance from computation of deduction claimed under section 80IB of the Act on reasoning that the disallowance of earned leave has no direct nexus with the activity of industrial undertaking. Group Appeals – Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd (Erstwhile M/s. Sun Pharma Sikkim) AY : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 47 48.2 On appeal by the assessee, the learned CIT (A) following the order of the Amritsar Tribunal in own case of the assessee for AY 2004-05 to 2008-09 has deleted the disallowance made by the AO under section 80IB of the Act. 48.3 Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us. 48.4 The learned DR before us vehemently supported the stand of the AO by reiterating the findings contained in the assessment order which we have already adverted to in the preceding paragraph. Therefore we are not repeating the same for the sake of brevity. 48.5 On the other hand, the learned AR before us submitted that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the order of this Tribunal in the own case of the assessee for the AY 2010-11 bearing ITA No. 2465/Ahd/2014. 49. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. At the outset, we find that the issue on hand is covered in favour of the assessee by the order of the coordinate bench of Mumbai Tribunal in the own case of the assessee for AY 2010-11 bearing ITA No. 2465/Mum/2014 where the coordinate bench by following the order of Amritsar Tribunal in own case of the assessee for AY 2005-06 to A.Y. 2009-10 decided the issue in favour the assessee. The relevant finding of the coordinate bench in ITA No. 2465/Mum/2014 reads as under: “28. Ground No VI relating to deletion of disallowances of deduction u/s 80-IB in respect of disallowances made u/s 28 to 44 of the Act is also covered in favour of the assessee by the orders of The Amritsar Tribunal in assesses own cases for the assessment years 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10. The Tribunal has decided the identical issue in assessee's own case for the assessment year 2004-05 by observing as under:- “18. As regards ground Nos. 4&5 of the Revenue regarding granting of higher deduction u/s 80IB on account of disallowance of remuneration/s 40(b) of the Act amounting to Rs.15,75,55,218/- and on account of disallowance of deduction u/s 43B amounting to Rs.12,92,626/-, it is observed that the issue is covered by the decision of the ITAT, Amritsar Bench, vide its order dated 11.06.2010 Group Appeals – Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd (Erstwhile M/s. Sun Pharma Sikkim) AY : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 48 in ITA No 184(Asr)/2009 in assessee's own case vide paras 37 to 40 at pages 67 to 69 (pages 190 to 192P8), wherein ITAT, Amritsar Bench, has allowed the claim of the assessee on the consequential higher amount eligible foe deduction under section 80IB of the Act. Following the said order of the Tribunal, dated 11.06.2010 these grounds of the Revenue are dismissed." 29. In view of the decisions of the Tribunal in assessee's own cases we uphold the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) and dismiss this ground of Revenue's appeal.” 49.1 Thus, respectfully taking the consistent view of tribunal in own case of the assessee, we do not find any infirmity in the finding of the learned CIT(A). Hence the ground of appeal raised by the Revenue is hereby dismissed. 50. The next issue raised by the Revenue vide ground No. 11 of its appeal is that the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of the deduction under section 80IB on account allocation of R&D expenses. 50.1 During the assessment proceeding, the AO found that the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing and formulation of pharmaceutical products which requires R&D center for research and development activities. However, the assessee firm does not have any R&D center. In deed all the R&D activities are carried out from M/s Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd (SIPL) which is controlling partner of the assessee firm. All the expenses incurred on R&D on behalf of the assessee firm are claimed by the SIPL only. Thus, this practice has resulted in profit shifting of SIPL to assessee firm which is enjoying tax holiday under 80IB of the Act for Jammu and Dadar unit. Thus the AO by invoking the provision of section 80IB(13) read with section 80IA(10) allocated the R&D expenses amounting to Rs. 44.80 crores to the eligible unit of the assessee in turnover ratio. 50.2 On appeal by the assessee learned CIT (A) deleted the allocation made by the AO by observing as under: “16.4. I have carefully considered the facts relating to this issue as they emerge from the impugned assessment order and the submissions made in appeal. As stated above, the A.O. has made this disallowance holding that the profits of the appellant were overstated on account of no expenses being debited for R&.D facilities. The appellant has submitted that the reimbursement expenses were made to cover a host of facilities and services that were availed of from SPIL and that the expenses on account R&.D for products developed Group Appeals – Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd (Erstwhile M/s. Sun Pharma Sikkim) AY : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 49 and launched were included in that, I find that the notional disallowance on account of R&.D expenses has been made on similar lines as the disallowances made for royalty, management fees and selling and distribution expenses. As discussed above, the said notional disallowances were found untenable by the Tribunal and were deleted in its order dated 12.06.2012. No additional facts have been brought on record to support the notional disallowance on account of R&.D expenditure. 16.5 Further in case of M/s. Sun Pharma Sikkim (SPS), sister concern of the appellant firm, similar disallowance was made by the AO for A.Y. 2010-11 on the basis of same facts and relying on the assessment done in the appellant's case. However, the CIT(A) in case of SPS decided the issue in favour of SPS. Relevant ara of CIT(A)'s order is reproduced herein below: "4.5.2 I have considered the facts related to the issue at hand. The fact that the development of products is carried out only by SPIL is not disputed. It is a/so a fact that such product technologies are completely owned by SPIL and that neither the appellant firm nor SPI hold any rights of ownership. In the impugned order, the AO has placed heavy reliance on the statement recorded from Dr. T. Rajamannar to conclude that R&D activity carried out by SPIL pertains to the appellant firm as well as SPI which fact is not denied by the appellant at any point in time. The appellant has explained that the products manufactured at the appellant unit are generic products. On consideration of facts it is apparent that the AO did not take into account the fact that the drugs being manufactured by the appellant firm did not enjoy high brand value but were prescription drugs where the quality was more important than the brand recall. The AO also disregarded the decision passed by the Hon'ble Amritsar ITAT bench deleting the aforesaid addition in the case of SPI. Thus, on the facts of the case, there is nothing to show that the appellant should have paid any amount for R & D work to SPJL, over and above the remuneration. Accordingly, the disallowance made cannot be sustained and is deleted. The ground raised by the appellant is therefore allowed." 16.6 My predecessor in appellant's case for A.Y. 2010-11 has deleted the disallowances on R&D Expenses. Accordingly, following the rationale behind the Tribunal's decision and my predecessor's decision on the disallowances of royalty etc., the disallowance on R&D expenses is deleted and the ground raised by the appellant is allowed.” 50.3 Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A) the Revenue is in appeal before us. 50.4 The learned DR before us vehemently supported the stand of the AO by reiterating the findings contained in the assessment order which we have already adverted to in the preceding paragraph. Therefore we are not repeating the same for the sake of brevity. 50.5 On the other hand learned AR before us submitted issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the order of the tribunal in own case of the assessee for A.Y. 2010-11 bearing ITA No. 2465/Ahd/2014. Group Appeals – Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd (Erstwhile M/s. Sun Pharma Sikkim) AY : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 50 51. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. At the outset, we find that the issue on hand is covered in favour of the assessee by the order of the co-ordinate bench of Mumbai Tribunal in own case of the assessee for A.Y. 2010-11 bearing ITA No. 2465/Mum/2014. The relevant finding of the coordinate bench in ITA No. 2465/Mum2014 reads as under: “30. Ground No VII of the appeal pertains to adjustment in respect of R&D expenditure incurred by the working partner of the firm. The ld. CIT(A) has allowed the contention of the assessee that no disallowance is called for because clause 7-B of the partnership deed specifically provides for remuneration for technical assistance in the manufacturing activities and R&D facilities were included in the same. The Ld. CIT(A) has further based its findings on the ground that the notional disallowance on account of R&D expenses has been made by the AO on similar lines as have been made in respect of royalty, management fees and selling and distribution expenses and the said pounds were found not tenable by the Tribunal. Following the rationale behind the deletion in respect of royalty, management fees and selling and distribution expenses, by the ITAT Amritsar, we uphold the deletion made by the Ld. CIT(A) and dismiss this ground of appeal of the revenue.” 51.1 Thus, respectfully taking the consistent view of Tribunal in the own case of the assessee, we do not find any infirmity in the finding of the learned CIT(A). Hence the ground of appeal raised by the Revenue is hereby dismissed. 52. In the result appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed. ITA No. 2595/Mum/2018 an appeal by the Assessee – A.Y. 2012-13 (Sun Pharmaceutical Industries) 53. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The orders of the lower authorities are arbitrary, not based on proper evidences, without proper reasons, invalid and also bad in law. 2. Re: "Initial assessment year" u/s 80-IB(14)(c) read with sec. 80-IB(2)(ii) (a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as Learned CIT (A)], while allowing the deduction under section 80-IB(4) in respect of profit from industrial undertaking at Dadra, erred by considering the previous year as 11 th year of operation [i.e. after expiry of eligible period of 10 years] as against the assessee's claim of 9th year of operation. Group Appeals – Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd (Erstwhile M/s. Sun Pharma Sikkim) AY : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 51 (b) The learned CIT (A) has not appreciated the facts in proper perspective and erred in not appreciating the legal position that, for the purpose of section 80-IB, the initial assessment year is to be reckoned from the date of commencement of "commercial production” and not from any earlier date. Holding the year under appeal as the 11 th year for claiming deduction u/s 80IB(4) of the Act being bad in law, the claim of the appellant treating the year as the 9 th year from the beginning with the initial assessment year needs to be allowed/accepted. 3. Re: Invoking the provisions of S. 80IB(13) r.w.s. 80IA(10): On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the invoking of the provisions of S- 80IB(13) r.w.s. 80IA(10) for the purpose of computing the deduction u/s. 80IB. 4. Re: Disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB/10B in respect of interest income on staff advances - Rs.1,70,539/- (Jammu Unit Rs.78,429/- and Dadra Unit Rs. 92,110/-) (a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the disallowance u/s 80IB/10B in respect of and to the extent of interest on loan to employees amounting to Rs.1,70,539/- holding them to be not derived from the industrial undertaking. (b) The learned CIT (A) also erred in not appreciating that the section 801B/10B grants deduction in respect of 'any profits from any business' of the industrial under taking. 5. Re: Disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB in respect of interest income - Rs. 1,84,349/- on bank FDR (Jammu Unit Rs.1,59,791/-; Dadra Unit Rs.24,558/-) (a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the disallowance u/s 80-1 B in respect of and to the extent of interest on FDRs amounting to Rs.1,84,349/- holding them to be not derived from the industrial undertaking. (b) The learned CIT(A) also erred in not appreciating that the section 80IB grants deduction in respect of 'any profits from any business' of the industrial undertaking. 6. Re: Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. 271(l)(c). On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT (A) erred in not striking down the initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1) (c).” 54. The issue raised by the assessee in ground No. 1& 3 of its appeal is general in nature and not requiring any separate adjudication. Hence the same is dismissed as infructuous. 55. The next issue raised by the assessee vide ground no. 2 of its appeal is that the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the year under consideration as 11 th year of claim u/s 80IB(4) with regard to Dadra undertaking against the 9 th year claimed. Group Appeals – Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd (Erstwhile M/s. Sun Pharma Sikkim) AY : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 52 56. At the outset, we note that the issue raised by the assessee in its grounds of appeal for the AY 2012-13is identical to the issue raised by the assessee in ITA No. 3507/Mum/2016 for the assessment year 2011-12. Therefore, the findings given in ITA No. 3507/Mum/2016 shall also be applicable for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2012-13. The appeal of the assessee for the assessment 2011-12 has been decided by us vide paragraph no. 30 of this order against the assessee. The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings for the assessment year 2011-12 shall also be applied for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2012-13. Hence, the ground of appeal filed by the assessee is hereby dismissed. 57. The next issue raised by the assessee vide ground no. 4 and 5 of its appeal is that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the exclusion of interest income from computation of deduction u/s 80IB/10B of the Act. 58. At the outset, we note that the issues raised by the assessee in its grounds of appeal for the AY 2012-13 are identical to the issues raised by the assessee in ITA No. 3507/Mum/2016 for the assessment year 2011-12. Therefore, the findings given in ITA No. 3507/Mum/2016 shall also be applicable for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2012-13. The appeal of the assessee for the assessment 2011-12 has been decided by us vide paragraph nos. 34 to 34.1 of this order against the assessee. The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings for the assessment year 2011-12 shall also be applied for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2012-13. Hence, the ground of appeal filed by the assessee is hereby dismissed. 59. The next issue raised by the assessee vide ground no. 6 is either consequential or premature to decide. Hence the same is dismissed accordingly. 60. In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed Group Appeals – Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd (Erstwhile M/s. Sun Pharma Sikkim) AY : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 53 ITA No. 1466/Ahd/2018 an appeal by the Revenue – A.Y. 2012-13 (Sun Pharmaceutical Industries) 61. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in allowing relief to the assessee and in not confirming the additions made by the AO on these issues. 2.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. C.I.T. (A) erred in holding that rejection of books of accounts in this case is not legally tenable without appreciating the facts and reasons mentioned by the AO in the assessment order. 2.2 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. C.I.T. (A) erred in not upholding the A.O's action of rejection of books of accounts without appreciating that the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings did not furnish the details called for, and hence considering the facts of the case, the A.O. correctly rejected the books of accounts of the assessee. 3.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in not upholding the A.O's action that the purchase of Industrial Undertaking at Dadra is the case of splitting up or reconstruction of business of SPIL. 4.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB(13) r.w.s. 80IA(10) on apportionment of royalty expenses of Rs. 38,06,09,798/- without appreciating the fact that the assessee was using trademarks, brands and logo of SPIL, a major partner, for which neither any fee or royalty is charged and hence disallowance made @ 8% of sales adopted by the Assessing Officer is justifiable and reasonable. 4.2 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB(13) r.w.s. 80IA(10) on apportionment of royalty expenses without appreciating that the assessee in the guise of payment in the nature of remuneration for technical services of the nature of royalty adopted a device to inflate its non taxable income as is evident from the fact that assessee itself had admitted that it had included compensation for use of trademark, brand name etc as remuneration and that compensation could not be equated with remuneration. 5.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB(13) r.w.s. 80IA(10) on apportionment of management fees of Rs. 23,78,81,123/- without appreciating the fact that the affairs of the assessee were managed by SPIL, the working partner, and nothing is paid or charged by SPIL and hence disallowance made @ 5% of turnover adopted by the Assessing Officer is justifiable and reasonable. 5.2 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB(13) r.w.s, 80IA(10) on apportionment of management fees without appreciating that the provision of the Supplementary Deed of partners if at all, applicable can be only from a date on or after 15th March, 2012. The assessee cannot correct its mistakes or undone the anomaly by creating a retrospective charge by a written or otherwise instrument. The assessee has simply made a supplementary deed of partnership and tried unjustifiably to give retrospective effect to its acts of omission and commission. Group Appeals – Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd (Erstwhile M/s. Sun Pharma Sikkim) AY : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 54 6.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB(13) r.w.s. 80IA(10) on apportionment of selling and distribution expenses of Rs.64,40,00,000/- incurred by the working partner without appreciating the fact that all the sales and distribution expenses were debited to SPIL and no allocation was made to SPI and SPS units, as has been revealed during the proceedings of survey action u/s. 133A. 6.2 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in deleting the disallowance of deduction u/s. 80IB in respect of selling and distribution expenses without appreciating the A.O's finding on supplementary partnership deed and without appreciating that selling and distribution expenses cannot be considered in conjunction with remuneration and such charging of remuneration was not in accordance with the spirit of section 40(b) of the Act. 7.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in allowing the assessee's ground on disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB in respect of receipt of interest of Rs.6,02,63,146/- on delayed payments on sales without appreciating the facts and reasons mentioned by the AO in the assessment order. 7.2 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in allowing the assessee's ground on disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB in respect of receipt of interest on delayed payments on sales without appreciating the fact that this was not derived from manufacturing activity and the same was rightly disallowed by the AO. 8.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB on remuneration to working partner of Rs.15,53,28,841/- without appreciating the fact that the assessee had claimed remuneration paid to SPIL on the basis of supplementary deed of partnership dated 15-03- 2012 and the same was not allowable in light of the provisions of section 40(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 8.2 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB on remuneration to working partner of Rs.15,53,28,841/- without appreciating the A.O's findings in the assessment order particularly with regard to assessee's reliance on supplementary partnership deed for inflating its profit for claiming higher deduction u/s. 80IB of the Act. 9.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB(13) in respect of disallowance of Rs.15,52,384/- made u/s 43B of the Act without appreciating the facts that the AO has made addition on account of excise duty and earned leave due to non deposit of the same before the due date of furnishing return. 10.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. C.I.T. (A) erred in deleting the disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB(13) r.w.s. 80IA(10) on apportionment of research and development expenses of Rs.6,80,00,000/- incurred by the working partner without appreciating the fact that expenditure related to R&D was debited only in the hands of SPIL but no allocation was made to SPI and SPS units, as has been revealed during the proceedings of survey action u/s 133A, and the working of allocation of R&D activity on the basis of turnover in the ratio of 3:1 is justifiable and reasonable. 10.2 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. C.I.T. (A) erred in deleting the disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB(13) r.w.s. 80IA(10) in respect of research and development expenses without appreciating that R&D work requires specialized skill and knowledge, and consequently payment towards R&D activity cannot be termed as remuneration but would be termed as professional payment.” Group Appeals – Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd (Erstwhile M/s. Sun Pharma Sikkim) AY : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 55 62. The issue raised by the Revenue in ground No. 1& 11 of its appeal is general in nature and not requiring any separate adjudication. Hence the same is dismissed being infructuous. 63. The next issue raised by the Revenue vide ground No. 2 of its appeal is that the learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the books of account rejected by the AO is not sustainable. 64. At the outset we note that the issues raised by the Revenue in its grounds of appeal for the AY 2012-13 are identical to the issues raised by the Revenue in ITA No. 4096/Mum/2016 for the assessment year 2011-12. Therefore, the findings given in ITA No. 4096/Mum/2016 shall also be applicable for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2012-13. The appeal of the assessee for the assessment 2011-12 has been decided by us vide paragraph no. 40 of this order against the Revenue. The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings for the assessment year 2011-12 shall also be applied for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2012-13. Hence, the ground of appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. 65. The next issue raised by the Revenue vide ground No. 3 of its appeal is that the learned CIT(A) erred in holding that Dadra unit was not formed by splitting of existing business. 66. At the outset we note that the issues raised by the Revenue in its grounds of appeal for the AY 2012-13 are identical to the issues raised by the Revenue in ITA No. 4096/Mum/2016 for the assessment year 2011-12. Therefore, the findings given in ITA No. 4096/Mum/2016 shall also be applicable for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2012-13. The appeal of the assessee for the assessment 2011-12 has been decided by us vide paragraph no. 38 to 38.1 of this order against the Revenue. The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings for the assessment year 2011-12 shall also be applied for the year Group Appeals – Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd (Erstwhile M/s. Sun Pharma Sikkim) AY : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 56 under consideration i.e. AY 2012-13. Hence, the ground of appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. 67. The next issue raised by the Revenue vide ground no. 4 to 6 of its appeal is that the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the allocation of notional royalty expenses, managerial fee, selling and distribution expenses to Jammu and Dadra unit by invoking the provision of section 80IB(13) r.w.s. 80IA(10) of the Act. 68. At the outset we note that the issues raised by the Revenue in its grounds of appeal for the AY 2012-13 are identical to the issues raised by the Revenue in ITA No. 4096/Mum/2016 for the assessment year 2011-12. Therefore, the findings given in ITA No. 4096/Mum/2016 shall also be applicable for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2012-13. The appeal of the assessee for the assessment 2011-12 has been decided by us vide paragraph no. 41 to 41.2 of this order against the Revenue. The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings for the assessment year 2011-12 shall also be applied for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2012-13. Hence, the ground of appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. 69. The next issue raised by the Revenue vide ground No. 7 of its appeal is that the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowances/exclusion of interest on delayed payment from computation of deduction u/s 80IB of the Act. 70. At the outset we note that the issues raised by the Revenue in its grounds of appeal for the AY 2012-13 are identical to the issues raised by the Revenue in ITA No. 4096/Mum/2016 for the assessment year 2011-12. Therefore, the findings given in ITA No. 4096/Mum/2016 shall also be applicable for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2012-13. The appeal of the assessee for the assessment 2011-12 has been decided by us vide paragraph no. 45 to 45.1 of this order against the Revenue. The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings for the assessment year 2011-12 shall also be applied for the year Group Appeals – Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd (Erstwhile M/s. Sun Pharma Sikkim) AY : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 57 under consideration i.e. AY 2012-13. Hence, the ground of appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. 71. The next issue raised by the Revenue vide ground No. 8 of its appeal is that the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of the deduction under section 80IB of the Act on account of remuneration paid to partner. 72. At the outset we note that the issues raised by the Revenue in its grounds of appeal for the AY 2012-13 are identical to the issues raised by the Revenue in ITA No. 4096/Mum/2016 for the assessment year 2011-12. Therefore, the findings given in ITA No. 4096/Mum/2016 shall also be applicable for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2012-13. The appeal of the assessee for the assessment 2011-12 has been decided by us vide paragraph no. 47 to 47.1 of this order against the Revenue. The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings for the assessment year 2011-12 shall also be applied for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2012-13. Hence, the ground of appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. 73. The next issue raised by the Revenue vide ground no. 10 of its appeal is that the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowances deduction under section 80IB on account disallowances of expenses under section 43B of the Act. 74. At the outset we note that the issues raised by the Revenue in its grounds of appeal for the AY 2012-13 are identical to the issues raised by the Revenue in ITA No. 4096/Mum/2016 for the assessment year 2011-12. Therefore, the findings given in ITA No. 4096/Mum/2016 shall also be applicable for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2012-13. The appeal of the assessee for the assessment 2011-12 has been decided by us vide paragraph no. 49 to 49.1 of this order against the Revenue. The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings for the assessment year 2011-12 shall also be applied for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2012-13. Hence, the ground of appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Group Appeals – Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd (Erstwhile M/s. Sun Pharma Sikkim) AY : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 58 75. The next issue raised by the Revenue vide ground no. 10 of its appeal is that the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of deduction under section 80IB on account allocation of R&D expenses. 76. At the outset we note that the issues raised by the Revenue in its grounds of appeal for the AY 2012-13 are identical to the issues raised by the Revenue in ITA No. 4096/Mum/2016 for the assessment year 2011-12. Therefore, the findings given in ITA No. 4096/Mum/2016 shall also be applicable for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2012-13. The appeal of the assessee for the assessment 2011-12 has been decided by us vide paragraph no. 51 of this order against the Revenue. The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings for the assessment year 2011-12 shall also be applied for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2012-13. Hence, the ground of appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. 77. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed. ITA No. 2597/Mum/2018 an appeal by the Assessee – A.Y. 2013-14 (Sun Pharmaceutical Industries) 78. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. The orders of the lower authorities are arbitrary, not based on proper evidences, without proper reasons, invalid and also bad in law. 2. Re: "Initial assessment year" u/s 80-IB(14)(c) read with sec. 80-IB(2)(ii) (a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Commissioner of Income lax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as Learned CIT (A)], while allowing the deduction under section 80-IB(4) in respect of profit from industrial undertaking at Dadra, erred by considering the previous year as 12th year of operation [i.e. after expiry of eligible period of 10 years] as against the assessee’s claim of 10 th year of operation. (b) The learned CIT (A) has nor appreciated the facts in proper perspective and erred in not appreciating the legal position that, for the purpose of section 80-IB, the initial assessment year is to be reckoned from the date of commencement of "commercial production" and not from any earlier date. Holding the year under appeal as the 12 th year tor claiming deduction u/s 80113(4) of the Act being bad in law, the claim of the appellant treating the year as the 10 th year from the beginning with the initial assessment year needs to be allowed/accepted. Group Appeals – Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd (Erstwhile M/s. Sun Pharma Sikkim) AY : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 59 3. Re: Invoking the provisions of S. 80IB(13) r.w.s. 80IA(10): On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the invoking of the provisions of S. 80IB(13) r.w.s. 80IA(10) for the purpose of computing the deduction u/s. 80IB, 4. Re: Disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB/10B in respect of interest income on staff advances - Rs.90,324/- (Jammu Unit-I- Rs.9,787/-, Jammu unit-II - Rs 19,873/-and Dadra Unit Rs 60,664/-) (a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the disallowance u/s 80IB/10B in respect of and to the extent of interest on loan to employees amounting to Rs.90324/- holding them to be not derived from the industrial undertaking. (b) The learned CIT (A) also erred in not appreciating that the section 80IB/10B grants deduction in respect of 'any profits from any business' of the industrial undertaking. 5. Re: Disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB in respect of interest income - Rs. 79,922/- on bank FDR (Jammu Unit-I Rs.65,601/s Dadra Unit Rs.14,321/-) (a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the disallowance u/s 80IB in respect of and to the extent of interest on FDRs amounting to Rs.79,922/ - holding them to be not derived from the industrial undertaking. (b) The learned CIT (A) also erred in not appreciating that the section 80IB grants deduction in respect of 'any profits from any business' of the industrial undertaking. 6. Re: Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c). On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT (A) erred in not striking down the initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1) (c).” 79. The issues raised by the assessee in ground Nos. 1 & 3 of its appeal are general in nature and not requiring any separate adjudication. Hence the same are being dismissed as infructuous. 80. The next issue raised by the assessee vide ground No. 2 of its appeal is that the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the year under consideration as 12 th year of claim u/s 80IB(4) with regard to Dadra undertaking against the 10 th year claimed. 81. At the outset, we note that the issues raised by the assessee in its grounds of appeal for the AY 2013-14 are identical to the issues raised by the assessee in ITA No. 3507/Mum/2016 for the assessment year 2011-12. Therefore, the findings given in ITA No. 3507/Mum/2016 shall also be applicable for the year under Group Appeals – Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd (Erstwhile M/s. Sun Pharma Sikkim) AY : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 60 consideration i.e. AY 2013-14. The appeal of the assessee for the assessment 2011-12 has been decided by us vide paragraph no. 30 of this order against the assesse. The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings for the assessment year 2011-12 shall also be applied for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2013-14. Hence, the ground of appeal filed by the assessee is hereby dismissed. 82. The next issue raised by the assessee vide ground no. 4 and 5 of its appeal is that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the exclusion of interest income from computation of deduction u/s 80IB/10B of the Act. 83. At the outset, we note that the issue raised by the assessee in its grounds of appeal for the AY 2013-14 are identical to the issues raised by the assessee in ITA No. 3507/Mum/2016 for the assessment year 2011-12. Therefore, the findings given in ITA No. 3507/Mum/2016 shall also be applicable for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2013-14. The appeal of the assessee for the assessment 2011-12 has been decided by us vide paragraph no. 34 to 34.1 of this order against the assessee. The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings for the assessment year 2011-12 shall also be applied for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2013-14. Hence, the ground of appeal filed by the assessee is hereby dismissed. 84. The next issue raised by the assessee vide ground no. 6 is either consequential or premature to decide. Hence the same is dismissed accordingly. 85. In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed. ITA No. 1467/Ahd/2018 an appeal by the Revenue – A.Y. 2013-14(Sun Pharmaceutical Industries) 86. The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal: Group Appeals – Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd (Erstwhile M/s. Sun Pharma Sikkim) AY : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 61 “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in allowing relief to the assessee and in not confirming the additions made by the AO on these issues. 2.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. C.I.T. (A) erred in holding that rejection of books of accounts in this case is not legally tenable without appreciating the facts and reasons mentioned by the AO in the assessment order. 2.2 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. C.I.T. (A) erred in not upholding the A.O's action of rejection of books of accounts without appreciating that the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings did not furnish the details called for, and hence considering the facts of the case, the A.O. correctly rejected the books of accounts of the assessee. 3.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in not upholding the A.O's action that the purchase of Industrial Undertaking at Dadra is the case of splitting up or reconstruction of business of SPIL. 4.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB(13) r.w.s. 80IA(10) on apportionment of royalty expenses of Rs. 27,81,31,300/- without appreciating the fact that the assessee was using trademarks, brands and logo of SPIL, a major partner, for which neither any fee or royalty is charged and hence disallowance made @ 8% of sales adopted by the Assessing Officer is justifiable and reasonable. 4.2 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB(13) r.w.s. 80IA(10) on apportionment of royalty expenses without appreciating that the assessee in the guise of payment in the nature of remuneration for technical services of the nature of royalty adopted a device to inflate its non taxable income as is evident from the fact that assessee itself had admitted that it had included compensation for use of trademark, brand name etc as remuneration and that compensation could not be equated with remuneration. 5.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB(13) r.w.s. 80IA(10) on apportionment of management fees of Rs. 17,38,32,062/- without appreciating the fact that the affairs of the assessee were managed by SPIL, the working partner, and nothing is paid or charged by SPIL and hence disallowance made @ 5% of turnover adopted by the Assessing Officer is justifiable and reasonable. 6.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB(13) r.w.s. 80IA(10) on apportionment of selling and distribution expenses of Rs.62,56,00,000/- incurred by the working partner without appreciating the fact that all the sales and distribution expenses were debited to SPIL and no allocation was made to SPI and SPS units, as has been revealed during the proceedings of survey action u/s. 133A. 6.2 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in deleting the disallowance of deduction u/s. 80IB in respect of selling and distribution expenses without appreciating the A.O's finding on supplementary partnership deed and without appreciating that selling and distribution expenses cannot be considered in conjunction with remuneration and such charging of remuneration was not in accordance with the spirit of section 40(b) of the Act. 7.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in allowing the assessee's ground on disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB in respect of receipt of interest of Rs.5,03,91,648/- on delayed payments on sales without appreciating the facts and reasons mentioned by the AO in the assessment order. Group Appeals – Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd (Erstwhile M/s. Sun Pharma Sikkim) AY : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 62 7.2 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in allowing the assessee's ground on disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB in respect of receipt of interest on delayed payments on sales without appreciating the fact that this was not derived from manufacturing activity and the same was rightly disallowed by the AO. 8.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB on remuneration to working partner of Rs.12,54,53,618/- without appreciating the fact that the assessee had claimed remuneration paid to SPIL on the basis of supplementary deed of partnership dated 15-03- 2012 and the same was not allowable in light of the provisions of section 40(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 8.2 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB on remuneration to working partner of Rs.12,54,53,618/- without appreciating the A.O's findings in the assessment order particularly with regard to assessee's reliance on supplementary partnership deed for inflating its profit for claiming higher deduction u/s. 80IB of the Act. 9.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB(13) in respect of disallowance of Rs.7,22,191/- made u/s 43B of the Act without appreciating the facts that the AO has made addition on account of excise duty and earned leave due to non deposit of the same before the due date of furnishing return. 10.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. C.I.T. (A) erred in deleting the disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB(13) r.w.s. 80IA(10) on apportionment of research and development expenses of Rs.40,39,000/- incurred by the working partner without appreciating the fact that expenditure related to R&D was debited only in the hands of SPIL but no allocation was made to SPI and SPS units, as has been revealed during the proceedings of survey action u/s 133A, and the working of allocation of R&D activity on the basis of turnover in the ratio of 3:1 is justifiable and reasonable. 10.2 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. C.I.T. (A) erred in deleting the disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB(13) r.w.s. 80IA(10) in respect of research and development expenses without appreciating that R&D work requires specialized skill and knowledge, and consequently payment towards R&D activity cannot be termed as remuneration but would be termed as professional payment.” 87. The issue raised by the Revenue in ground Nos. 1 & 11 of its appeal are general in nature and not requiring any separate adjudication. Hence the same are being dismissed as infructuous. 88. The next issue raised by the Revenue vide ground No. 2 of its appeal is that the learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the books of account rejected by the AO is not sustainable. 89. At the outset we note that the issues raised by the Revenue in its grounds of appeal for the AY 2013-14 are identical to the issues raised by the Revenue in Group Appeals – Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd (Erstwhile M/s. Sun Pharma Sikkim) AY : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 63 ITA No. 4096/Mum/2016 for the assessment year 2011-12. Therefore, the findings given in ITA No. 4096/Mum/2016 shall also be applicable for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2013-14. The appeal of the assessee for the assessment 2011-12 has been decided by us vide paragraph no. 40 of this order against the Revenue. The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings for the assessment year 2011-12 shall also be applied for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2013-14. Hence, the ground of appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. 90. The next issue raised by the Revenue vide ground No. 3 of its appeal is that the learned CIT(A) erred in holding that Dadra unit was not formed by splitting of existing business. 91. At the outset, we note that the issue raised by the Revenue in its grounds of appeal for the AY 2013-14 are identical to the issue raised by the Revenue in ITA No. 4096/Mum/2016 for the assessment year 2011-12. Therefore, the findings given in ITA No. 4096/Mum/2016 shall also be applicable for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2013-14. The appeal of the assessee for the assessment 2011-12 has been decided by us vide paragraph no. 38 to 38.1 of this order against the Revenue. The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings for the assessment year 2011-12 shall also be applied for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2013-14. Hence, the ground of appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed. 92. The next issue raised by the Revenue vide ground Nos. 4 to 6 of its appeal are that the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the allocation of notional royalty expenses, managerial fee, selling and distribution expenses to Jammu and Dadra unit by invoking the provision of section 80IB(13) r.w.s. 80IA(10) of the Act. 93. At the outset, we note that the issues raised by the Revenue in its grounds of appeal for the AY 2013-14 are identical to the issues raised by the Revenue in ITA No. 4096/Mum/2016 for the assessment year 2011-12. Therefore, the findings given in ITA No. 4096/Mum/2016 shall also be applicable for the year under Group Appeals – Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd (Erstwhile M/s. Sun Pharma Sikkim) AY : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 64 consideration i.e. AY 2013-14. The appeal of the assessee for the assessment 2011-12 has been decided by us vide paragraph no. 41 to 41.2 of this order against the Revenue. The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings for the assessment year 2011-12 shall also be applied for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2013-14. Hence, the ground of appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed. 94. The next issue raised by the Revenue vide ground No. 7 of its appeal is that the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance/exclusion of interest on delayed payment from computation of deduction u/s 80IB of the Act. 95. At the outset, we note that the issues raised by the Revenue in its grounds of appeal for the AY 2013-14 are identical to the issues raised by the Revenue in ITA No. 4096/Mum/2016 for the assessment year 2011-12. Therefore, the findings given in ITA No. 4096/Mum/2016 shall also be applicable for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2013-14. The appeal of the assessee for the assessment 2011-12 has been decided by us vide paragraph no. 45 of this order against the Revenue. The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings for the assessment year 2011-12 shall also be applied for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2013-14. Hence, the ground of appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed. 96. The next issue raised by the Revenue vide ground No. 8 of its appeal is that the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of deduction under section 80IB of the Act on account of remuneration paid to partner. 97. At the outset we note that the issues raised by the Revenue in its grounds of appeal for the AY 2013-14 are identical to the issues raised by the Revenue in ITA No. 4096/Mum/2016 for the assessment year 2011-12. Therefore, the findings given in ITA No. 4096/Mum/2016 shall also be applicable for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2013-14. The appeal of the Revenue for the assessment 2011-12 has been decided by us vide paragraph no. 47 of this order against the Revenue. The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the Group Appeals – Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd (Erstwhile M/s. Sun Pharma Sikkim) AY : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 65 findings for the assessment year 2011-12 shall also be applied for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2013-14. Hence, the ground of appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed. 98. The next issue raised by the Revenue vide ground No. 10 of its appeal is that the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of deduction under section 80IB of the Act on account disallowances of expenses under section 43B of the Act. 99. At the outset, we note that the issues raised by the Revenue in its grounds of appeal for the AY 2013-14 are identical to the issues raised by the Revenue in ITA No. 4096/Mum/2016 for the assessment year 2011-12. Therefore, the findings given in ITA No. 4096/Mum/2016 shall also be applicable for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2013-14. The appeal of the Revenue for the assessment 2011-12 has been decided by us vide paragraph no. 49 of this order against the Revenue. The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings for the assessment year 2011-12 shall also be applied for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2013-14. Hence, the ground of appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed. 100. The next issue raised by the Revenue vide ground No. 10 of its appeal is that the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of deduction under section 80IB on account allocation of R&D expenses. 101. At the outset we note that the issues raised by the Revenue in its grounds of appeal for the AY 2013-14 are identical to the issues raised by the Revenue in ITA No. 4096/Mum/2016 for the assessment year 2011-12. Therefore, the findings given in ITA No. 4096/Mum/2016 shall also be applicable for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2013-14. The appeal of the revenue for the assessment 2011-12 has been decided by us vide paragraph no. 51 of this order against the Revenue. The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings for the assessment year 2011-12 shall also be applied for the year under Group Appeals – Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd (Erstwhile M/s. Sun Pharma Sikkim) AY : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 66 consideration i.e. AY 2013-14. Hence, the ground of appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed. 102. In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed. 103. In the combined result: S. No. Appeal No. Asst. Year Appellant Result 1. ITA No. 3980/Mum/2017 2012-13 Assessee Partly allowed 2. ITA No. 2596 /Mum/2018 2013-14 Assessee Dismissed 3. ITA No. 1397/Ahd/2017 2012-13 Department Dismissed 4. ITA No. 1468/Ahd/2018 2013-14 Department Dismissed 5. ITA No. 3507 & 4096/Mum/2016 2011-12 Assessee & Department Dismissed 6. ITA No. 2595 & 2597/Mum/2018 2012-13 & 2013-14 Assessee Dismissed 7. ITA No. 1466 & 1467/Ahd2018 2012-13 & 2013-14 Department Dismissed Order pronounced in the open Court on 24 th August 2022 at Ahmedabad. Sd/- Sd/- (MAHAVIR PRASAD) (WASEEM AHMED) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad, Dated 24/08/2022 आदेश े /Copy of the Order forwarded to : आदेशान ु सार/BY ORDER, True Copy उ /सहाय ंजी ार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आय र ी य र , हमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad 1. ा / The Appellant 2. / The Respondent. 3. स ु / Concerned CIT 4. ु ( ) / The CIT(A) 5. !व"ा# $ $न , ण/ DR, ITAT, 6. #ा%&'ाई / Guard file. Group Appeals – Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd (Erstwhile M/s. Sun Pharma Sikkim) AY : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 67 1. Date of dictation- .... Words processed by Hon’ble AM on his laptop....16.08.2022 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member ............ Other member ..................... 3. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S. - .................. 4. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for Pronouncement .... 5. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk............ 6. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk.................................. 7. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order..................... 8. Date of Despatch of the Order..................
Other Referred Cases
-
Laws Referred To
-
1:1 Consultation on Salary Structuring
₹1
360 Brand Audit (30 mins)
₹299
1:1 Consultation with family dentist -Your Smile Deserves the Best Care!
₹250
Memorandum Amendment Resolution
₹0
Initial LLP Agreement
₹0
Why Meesho got ₹1,500 Crore Tax Demand ?
Team Counselvise - March 09, 2026
Residency Rules: Income Tax Act, 1961 vs Income Tax Bill, 2025 — A Subtle Yet Significant Shift!
Team Counselvise - February 18, 2026
Why Lacoste Won a 20-Year Trademark Battle Against Crocodile ?
Team Counselvise - March 10, 2026