DCIT CIR 7(1), MUMBAI V. PRINCE PIPE & FITTINGS P. LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 378/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 93018 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-06-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 16-01-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 80IB

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE S/SHRI B.R.BASKARAN (AM) AND AMIT SHUKLA, (JM) . . , , ./ I.T. A. NO. 378 / MUM/20 1 4 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 10 - 11 ) DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 7(1). ROOM N.622, AAYAKAR BHAV AN , M K ROAD, MUMBAI - 400020 / VS. M/S PRINCE PIPES AND FITTINGS PVT LTD, 4 TH FLOOR, B WING, RUBY HOUSE, J K SAWA NT MARG, DADAR (W), MUMBAI - 400028. ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. : AAACP2319J / APPELLANT BY SHRI PREMANAND J / RSPONDENT BY MS.MRUGAKSHI K JOSHI / DATE OF HEARING : 2 3 . 6 . 201 5 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23 . 6 . 201 5 / O R D E R PER B.R. BASKARAN (AM) THE REVENUE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL CHALLENGING THE ORDER DATED 28.1 1.2013 PASSED BY LD . CIT(A) - 1 3, MUMBAI AND IT RELATES TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 10 - 11 . 2. ONLY ISSUE URGED IN THIS APPEAL IS REGARDING THE RELIEF GRANTED BY THE LD.CIT(A) REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE AO REJECTING THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 80IB OF T HE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT), AMOUNTING TO RS.2.73 CRORES. ITA NO. 378 / MUM/20 1 4 2 3. THE LD. COUNSEL APPEARING FO R THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURE OF PLASTIC PIPES AND FITTINGS AND CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 80IB O F THE ACT AT THE RATE OF 100% IN RESPECT OF UNIT - 5 AND AT THE RATE OF 30% IN RESPECT OF UNIT - 4 . THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT IT HAS SET UP DIFFERENT U NITS NUMBERED AS NO.1 TO 5 AND THEY ARE INDEPENDENT OF EACH OTHER. A CCORDINGLY THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED T HAT DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB OF THE A CT SHOULD BE ALLOWED INDEPENDENTLY TO EACH OF THE UNIT . HOWEVER , THE AO REJECTED T H E SAID CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE . 4. THE LD.AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT TH E LD. CIT(A) ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BY FOLLOWIN G THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CA SE IN ITA NO.3082/MUM/2010 (AY - 2006 - 07) DATED 9.2.2012, WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN FA VOUR OF THE ASSESSEE . THE LD. COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE D ECISION RENDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN AY - 2006 - 07 WAS ALSO FOLLOWED BY ANOTHER BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN AY - 2007 - 08 PASSED IN ITA NO.5488/MUM/2010, DATED 5.10.2011. ACCORDINGLY , THE LD.COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE DESERVES TO BE DISMISSED. 5. ON THE CONTRARY , THE LD. DR PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF THE AO . 6. WE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. ADMITTEDLY , THE LD.CIT(A) HAS FOLLOWED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR AY - 2006 - 07. A PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WOULD SHOW THAT THE T RIBUNAL IS CONSISTENTLY TAKING THE VIEW THAT THE DEDU C TION U/S 80IB SHOULD BE ALLOWED UNIT - WISE AND EACH UNIT IS AN INDEPENDENT UNIT. WE NOTICE THAT THE LD. CIT ( A) HAS FOLLOWED THE ITA NO. 378 / MUM/20 1 4 3 ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL ON THIS ISSUE. WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN HIS ORDER. 7 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED ACCORDINGLY ON 23 RD JUNE, 2015 JUNE , 2015 SD SD ( / AMIT SHUKLA ) ( . . / B.R. BASKARAN) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBA I: 23RD JUNE ,2015 . . . ./ SRL , SR. PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - CONCERNED 4. / CIT CONCERNED 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI CONCERNED 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, TRUE COPY (ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , /ITAT, MUMBAI