ACIT CENT. CIR. - 14, MUMBAI V. M/s. WOCKHARDT LIFE SCIENCES LTD., MUMBAI

ITA 5494/MUM/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7200 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-03-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 12-03-2010
• Assessment Year: 1999-2000
• Appeal Filed On: 01-09-2008
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Business income
• Section: 80HH

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH G, MUMBAI. BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY,A.M. AND SMT.P.MADHA VI DEVI, J.M. I.T.A. NO. 5 494 & 5495/MUM/2008. ASSESSMENT YEARS : 1999-2000 & 20 00-2001. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, M/S W OCKHARDT LIFE SCIENCES CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, VS. LTD., WOCKHARDT TOWERS, MUMBAI. BANDRA-KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA (E) MUMBAI 400051. PAN : AAACW1299E APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : NONE. RESPONDENT BY : S/SHRI KANCHAN KAUSHAL, DHANESH BAFNA. KRISHNA KANAKIA. O R D E R PER J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, A.M. BOTH THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE REVENUE AND ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE CIT(APPEALS), CE NTRAL-III, MUMBAI DATED 26-06-2008. 2. AS THE ISSUE ARISING IN BOTH THE APPEALS ARE CO MMON AND BELONG TO THE SAME ASSESSEE, WE DISPOSE OF THE SAME EXPARTE ON MERITS QUA THE REVENUE FOR THE REASON THAT THE REVENUE SUB MITS THAT NOBODY HAS BEEN AUTHORIZED TO ARGUE ON ITS BEHALF AND NO SPECI FIC REASON IS GIVEN FOR ADJOURNMENT. IN OUR HUMBLE OPINION, THIS IS NOT A F IT CASE FOR ADJOURNMENT. IT IS FOUND THAT IN A NUMBER OF CASES DURING THIS WEEK IN THIS 2 BENCH, THE REVENUE IS SEEKING ADJOURNMENTS ON THE G ROUND THAT THERE IS NO INFORMATION WITH THE LEARNED SR. DR AS TO WHY TH E LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE WAS NOT ABLE TO PRESENT HIMSELF BEFO RE THE BENCH FOR THESE CASES. 3. WE HAVE HEARD MR. KANCHAN KAUSHAL AND MR. DHANE SH BAFNA ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. ON A CAREFUL CONSI DERATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND A PERUSAL OF THE PAPERS ON RECORD AND THE ORDERS OF THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW S WELL AS THE CASE LAWS CITED, WE HOLD AS FOLLOWS. 4. WE FIRST TAKE ITA NO. 5494/MUM/2008 FOR ASSESSM ENT YEAR 1999-2000. ON GROUND NO. 1(I), THE LEARNED CIT(APPE ALS) DEALT WITH THE ISSUE AT PARA 2.1 AND 2.2 WHICH ARE EXTRACTED FOR R EADY REFERENCE : 2.1 DURING THE COURSE OF THE APPEAL HEARING IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAD WRONGLY RESTRICTED THE DEDUCTION U/S 80- HH AND 80-I OF THE ACT TO THE EXTENT OF POSITIVE BUSINESS INCOME I NSTEAD OF GRANTING IT TO THE EXTENT OF GROSS TOTAL INCOME. RE LIANCE IN THIS REGARD WAS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE MUMBAI ITA T IN THE APPELLANTS OWN CASE FOR A.YS. 1996-97 AND 1997-98 WHEREIN, AFTER CONSIDERING THE DECISION OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT I N THE CASE OF SYNCO INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. AO (254 ITR 608), THE ITA T HELD THAT THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-IA HAS TO BE ALLOWED TO THE EXTENT OF GROSS TOTAL INCOME AND NOT RESTRICTED TO THE POS ITIVE BUSINESS PROFITS. 2.2 I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND T HE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT. I FIND THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE ORDER OF THE ITAT IN THE APPELLANTS OWN CASE. THE AO IS THEREFO RE, DIRECTED TO ALLOW DEDUCTION U/S 80HH AND 80-IA UPTO THE GROSS T OTAL INCOME. 5. THE ITAT IN ITA NO. 1293 & 1294/MUM/2002 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 1996-97 AND 1997-98 IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE VIDE ORDER DATED 12 TH DEC., 2002, HAD DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 3 THUS WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) AS HE FOLLOWED THE TRIBUNALS ORDER IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE. 6. COMING TO GROUND NO. 1(II), THE LEARNED CIT(APP EALS) DEALT WITH THIS ISSUE AT PARA 4.6 OF HIS ORDER. THIS BENC H IN THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR, DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF TH E ASSESSEE. NO CHANGE IN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES HAVE BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE. THUS WE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOW THE COORDINATE BENCH ORDER AND DISMISS THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIS MISSED. 8. NOW WE TAKE ITA NO. 5495/MUM/2008 FOR ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2000-2001. 9. THE GROUNDS IN THIS APPEAL ARE IDENTICAL TO THE GROUNDS TAKEN IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000. CONSISTENT WITH T HE VIEW TAKEN IN ITA NO. 5494/MUM/2008, WE UPHOLD THE FINDING OF THE FIR ST APPEAL AUTHORITY AND DISMISS THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. 10. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 30 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2010. SD/- SD/- (P.MADHAVI DEVI) (J. SUDHAKAR REDDY) JUDICIAL MEMBER. ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. MUMBAI, DATED : 30 TH MARCH, 2010. WAKODE 4 COPY FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT. 2. RESPONDENT 3. C.I.T. 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, G-BENCH. (TRUE COPY) BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI.