ADDL CIT RG 2(2), MUMBAI V. MEDITAB SEPECIALITIES P.LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 6657/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 665719914 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-03-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 16-09-2010
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P C MAURYA
• Assessee Lawyers: D R JAI N
• Section: 80IB

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH B BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN (VP) & SHRI RAJENDRA (AM) I.T.A.NO. 6657/MUM/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08) ACIT, CIRCLE 2(2) AAYAKAR BHAVAN M.K. ROAD MUMBAI-400 020. VS. M/S. MEDITAB SPECIALTIES P. LTD. 12, GUNBOW STREET FORT, MUMBAI-400 001. APPELLANT RESPONDENT PAN/GIR NO. : AAACM6124A ASSESSEE BY : SHRI D.R. JAIN DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI P.C. MAURYA DATE OF HEARING : 27.3.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27.3.2012 ORDER PER D.MANMOHAN (VP) :- THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 6.7.2010, PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A)-5, MUMBAI, AND I T PERTAINS TO A.Y. 2007-08. 2. THOUGH NUMBER OF GROUNDS WERE RAISED BEFORE US, THE ONLY ISSUE IS WITH REGARD TO THE ALLOWABILITY OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTI ON U/S. 80IB OF THE ACT. 3. WE HAVE HEARD LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIV E AS WELL AS LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD. FA CTS OF THE CASE ARE STATED IN BRIEF. ASSESSEE-COMPANY IS A MANUFACTURER OF PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS. IT HAS BULK DRUG MANUFACTURING PLANT AT K URKUMBH AND A FORMULATION MANUFACTURING PLANT AT GOA. BUT PLANT A T GOA IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB OF THE ACT ON THE ELIGIBLE PROFITS OF ` 77,17,094/-. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT IN ADDITION TO MANUFACTURING AT ITS OWN FACTORY, THE A SSESSEE-COMPANY GETS SOME OF THE PRODUCTS MANUFACTURED ON JOB WORK BASIS UNDER ITS DIRECT SUPERVISION AND CONTROL; IN THE COMMERCIAL PARLANCE IS CALLED LOAN M/S. MEDITAB SPECIALTIES P. LTD. 2 LICENSEE MANUFACTURERS. AN ISSUE WAS RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS TO WHETHER ASSESSEE-COMPANY IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM DE DUCTION U/S. 80IB ON MANUFACTURING DONE BY LOAN LICENSEE MANUFACTURERS. WHEN THE SAME WAS PUT TO THE ASSESSEE, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT AN I DENTICAL ISSUE HAS COME UP FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE ITAT, MUMBAI I N ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE EARLIER YEARS AS WELL AS IN THE CASE O F OTHER GROUP CONCERNS WHEREIN CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB WAS ALLOWED. H OWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT WITH DUE REGARD TO THE DECISION OF THE ITAT ON THE ISSUE, ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ALLOWED DEDUC TION IN RESPECT OF PROFIT DERIVED FROM THE JOB WORK DONE THROUGH LOAN LICENSEE MANUFACTURERS. 4. ON AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, LEARNED CIT( A) ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECI SION OF THE ITAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2006-07. 5. AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSES SEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE STANDS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE FOLLO WING DECISIONS OF THE ITAT MUMBAI BENCHES IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR EARL IER YEARS :- I) ITA NO. 2791/MUM/2005, DATED 30.7.2008 FOR A.Y. 2001- 02, ITAT B BENCH II) ITA NO. 4693/MUM/2007, DATED 13.3.2009 FOR A.Y. 2003- 04, ITAT B-1 BENCH (III) ITA NO. 263/MUM/2008, DATED 7.5.2010 FOR A.Y. 2004-05, ITAT B-1 BENCH (IV) ITA NO. 5811/MUM/2009, DATED 31.8.2010 FOR A.Y. 200 6- 07, ITAT F BENCH 7. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ADMITTED THA T THE ISSUE STANDS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE ITAT. HOWEVER , HE STRONGLY RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 8. HAVING REGARD TO RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A) DOES NOT CA LL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE SINCE THE VIEW TAKEN BY HIM IS IN CONSONANCE WITH T HE VIEW EXPRESSED BY M/S. MEDITAB SPECIALTIES P. LTD. 3 THE ITAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR EARLIER YEARS. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, AS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. SD/- (RAJENDRA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/- (D. MANMOHAN) VICE-PRESIDENT DATED : 27 MARCH, 2012. COPY TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A)-CONCERNED. 4. THE CIT, CONCERNED. 5. THE DR CONCERNED, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER TRUE COPY ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI PS