M/s Swastik Wire Product, Baddi V. DCIT, Parwanoo

ITA 494/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6779 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-10-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 16-03-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAVI SARANGA L

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH B, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.494/CHD/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-15) M/S SWASTIK WIRE PRODUCT, VS. THE D.C.I.T., PLOT NO.65A-65B, CIRCLE-PARWANOO, H.P. EPIP JHARMAJRI, PHASE-1, BADDI, H.P. PAN: ABGFS3429J (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI MANOJ KUMAR, C|A RESPONDENT BY : SHRI RAVI SARANGAL, CIT DR DATE OF HEARING : 16.10.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16.10.2017 ORDER PER SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAI NST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS ), SHIMLA (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS CIT(APPEALS)) DATED 13.1.2017 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15. 2. COMING TO THE MERITS OF THE CASE, THE LD. DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE ADDRESSED IN THE PRESENT A PPEAL IS IDENTICAL TO WHAT HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE CO-ORD INATE BENCH IN ITA NO. 798/CHD/2012 IN THE CASE OF HYCRON ELECTRONICS VS ITO. 3. THE RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSE SSEE IS THE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS MANUFACTURING OF COP PER WINDING WIRE W.E.F. 24.10.2017 AND THE INITIAL ASSE SSMENT 2 YEAR FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IC OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) WAS ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008- 09. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDE R SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT TO THE EXTENT OF 100% ELIGI BLE PROFIT FOR FIVE YEARS PERIOD FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 TO 2012-13. THE ASSESSEE HAD AGAIN CLAIMED 100% DEDUCTION AGAINST ELIGIBLE PROFIT IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15, WHICH WAS 7 TH YEAR OF PRODUCTION BY CLAIMING SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION OF THE UNIT IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. RELYING UPON THE AFORE SAID DECISION OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF HYCRON ELECTRON ICS (SUPRA), THE CLAIM WAS REJECTED BY THE LOWER AUTHOR ITIES. IN THE AFOREMENTIONED PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTAN CES, SINCE THE ISSUE ON FACTS AND LAW IS IDENTICAL AND W E FIND THE SUBMISSIONS TO BE CORRECT; ACCORDINGLY, RESPECT FULLY FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS REJECTED. 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16.10.2017. SD/- SD/- (B.R.R. KUMAR) (SANJAY GA RG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED 16 TH OCTOBER, 2017 *RATI* COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 3