The DCIT, Circle-1, Bharuch V. Pragati Glass Pvt. Ltd., Bharuch

ITA 876/AHD/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2013 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-10-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 10-04-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Business income; Transfer pricing; Rule of consistency; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 80IA

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT , , BEFORE SHRI C.M.GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . / ITA NOS. 876 TO 879/AHD/2017/SRT / ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2006-07, 2008-09, 2009-10 & 20 11-12 DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, BHARUCH. VS. M/S. PRAGATI GLASS PVT. LTD., ONGC ROAD, KHARACH, TAL-HANSOT, DIST BHARUCH 392 002. [PAN: AABCP 7377H] ( ' / APPELLANT) ( #$' /RESPONDENT) C.O NOS. 01, 02 & 03/SRT/2017 (ARISING IN ITA NOS.876, 877 & 878/AHD/2017/SRT) / ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2006-07, 2008-09 & 2009-10 M/S. PRAGATI GLASS PVT. LTD., ONGC ROAD, KHARACH, TAL-HANSOT, DIST BHARUCH 392 002. [PAN: AABCP 7377H] DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, BHARUCH. (CROSS OBJECTOR) ( #$' /RESPONDENT) / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SURENDRA MODIANI, C.A /REVENUE BY : SHRI DILEEP KUMAR, SR. D.R /DATE OF HEARING : 09-10-2018 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11-10-2018 / ORDER PER C.M.GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE ABOVE CAPTIONED APPEALS OF THE REVENUE AS WELL AS CROSS OBJECTIONS (COS) OF THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN FILED AG AINST THE SEPARATE 2 ITA NOS.876 TO 879/AHD/2017/SRT (A.YS: 2006-07, 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2011-12) C.O NOS. 01 TO 03/SRT/2017 M/S. PRAGATI GLASS PVT. LTD. ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-3, VA DODARA (CIT(A) FOR SHORT) DATED 16.01.2017 2. BOTH THE PARTIES HAVE AGREED THAT THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF ALL FOUR AYS ARE SIMILAR AND QUITE IDENTICAL. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND BREVITY, WE ARE TAKING UP ITA NO.879/AHD/2017/SRT O F REVENUE AND C.O NO.01/SRT/2017 FOR AY 2006-07 AS LEAD CASES TO DECI DE THE SOLE ISSUE. THE LD. ASSESSEES REPRESENTATIVE (AR) SUBMITTED TH AT THE ASSESSEE WANTS TO WITHDRAW THE C.O HENCE, THE SAME IS DISMIS SED AS WITHDRAWN. THE SOLE GROUND IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE READS AS FOLLOWS: ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN DDLETING DISALLOWANCE O F RS. 1,25,80,915/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S. 80IA OF THE IT ACT. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH SIDES AND CA REFULLY PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL PLACED ON THE RECORD OF THE T RIBUNAL. THE LD. AR DRAWING OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS COPY OF THE ORDER OF ITAT, AHMEDABAD D BENCH DATED 19.06.2017 IN ASSESSEES OWN CASES I.E. , APPEALS OF THE REVENUE FOR AY 2010-11 AND 2011-12 AND SUBMITTED TH AT THE IDENTICAL ISSUE AND CONTROVERSY HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN PARAS 3 TO 3.3 OF THIS ORDER THEREFORE, THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS IN ASSESSEES OWN CASES DATED 19.06 .2017 (SUPRA). 3 ITA NOS.876 TO 879/AHD/2017/SRT (A.YS: 2006-07, 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2011-12) C.O NOS. 01 TO 03/SRT/2017 M/S. PRAGATI GLASS PVT. LTD. 4. REPLYING TO THE ABOVE, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPR ESENTATIVE (DR) SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. HOWEVER, HE DID NO T CONTROVERT THE FACT THAT ITAT, AHMEDABAD IN THE ORDER DATED 19.06.2017 (SUPRA) HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE OF ALLOWABILITY OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80IA OF THE ACT IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF ABOVE RIVAL SUBMISSI ONS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ITAT, AHMEDABAD IN THE ORDER DATED 19 .06.2017 FOR AYS 2010-11 & 2007-08 (SUPRA) HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE WITH THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS AND FINDIN GS: 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PE RUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE WE ARE REPRODUCING HEREUNDER THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE A FORESAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 05.05.2017 FOR READY REFERENCE A ND ANALYSIS:- 'THESE TWO REVENUE'S APPEALS FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 AND 2009- 10 ARISE AGAINST THE CIT(A)-VI, B ARODA'S SEPARATE ORDERS DATED 01.11.2013 & 06.12.2013 IN CA SE NOS. CAB/VI-238/2010-11 & CAB/VI-463/2011-12, RESPECTIVE LY, IN PROCEEDINGS U/S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT , 1961; IN SHORT 'THE ACT'. HEARD BOTH SIDES. CASE FILES PERUSED. ITA NOS. 475 & 779/AHD/2014 (DCIT VS. PRAGATI GLASS WORKS P. LTD.) A. YS. 2008-09 & 2009-10 -2- 2. IT IS EVIDENT FROM REVENUE'S PLEADINGS THAT IT SEEK S TO RAISE TWO SUBSTANTIVE GROUNDS IDENTICAL IN BOTH OF ITS AP PEALS. FIRST SUBSTANTIVE GROUND READS THAT THE REVENUE ENDEAVORS TO RESTORE SECTION 80IA DEDUCTION DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 33,45,281/- IN FORMER AND RS.43,24,778/- IN LATTER ASSESSMENT YEAR AS MADE IN ASSESSMENT ORDERS AND DELETED IN TH E LOWER APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. RELEVANT FACTS THERETO ARE I N A VERY NARROW COMPASS. THIS ASSESSEE MANUFACTURES TUMBLERS AND GLASS BOTTLES. IT ALSO HAS A CAPTIVE POWER GENERATI ON UNIT ELIGIBLE FOR SECTION 8QIA DEDUCTION. THIS ELIGIBLE UNIT GENERATES POWER WHICH IS TRANSFERRED TO ASSESSEE'S OTHER UNIT. 4 ITA NOS.876 TO 879/AHD/2017/SRT (A.YS: 2006-07, 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2011-12) C.O NOS. 01 TO 03/SRT/2017 M/S. PRAGATI GLASS PVT. LTD. THE ASSESSEE IN TURN CHARGES THE SAME RATE OF POWER AS IS PURCHASED FROM THE STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD. THE ASS ESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED ITS ABOVE ST AT ED RATE BY REDUCING THE SAME TO THE EXTENT OF DIFFERENCE IN ITS ELIGIBLE UNIT AN D THAT PAID TO THE ABOVE GOVERNMENT UNDERTAKING. THIS CULMINATED IN TH E IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE AS STATED HEREINABOVE IN THE TWO ASSESSMENT YEARS IN QUESTION. THE CIT(A) IN TURN RE LIES UPON HIS ORDER IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 PLACING RELIAN CE UPON A CO-ORDINATE BENCH'S DECISIONS IN ASSESSEE'S CASES I TSELF IN A.Y. 2003-04 & 2004-05. HE THEREFORE DELETES THE IM PUGNED DISALLOWANCE OF SECTION 80IA DEDUCTION. THIS LEAVES THE REVENUE AGGRIEVED. 3. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE VEHEMENTLY ARGU ES THAT THE CIT(A) O UGHT NOT TO HAVE DELETED THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE. HE HOWEVER FAILS T O DISPUTE THE FACT THAT THIS TRIBUNAL'S CO-ORDINATE BENCH'S DECISIONS HEREINABOV E (SUPRA) HAVE ALREADY SETTLED THE ISSUE AGAINST THE REVENUE. THE SAID ORDERS FORM PART OF THE CASE FILE. THE RELEVANT DIS CUSSION THEREIN READS AS FOLLOWS: '11. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISS IONS ON THE ISSUE, PERUSED THE MATERIAL ALONG WITH THE ORD ERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. W E HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE DECISIONS CITED BY THE RESPECTIVE REPRESENTATIVE BEFORE US. I T IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS CONSUMING POWER FROM TWO SOURCES I.E GEB AND CAPTIVE GENERATION PLANT OF ITS OWN. THE GEB WAS BEING PAID AT THE RATE OF 4.9 PER ITA NOS. 475 & 779/AHD/2014 (DCIT VS. PRAGATI GLASS WORKS P. LTD.) A.YS. 2008-09 & 2009-10 -3- UNIT WHILE THE POWER PROCURED FROM CAPTIVE UNIT INSTALLED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURP OSE OF COMPUTING ELIGIBLE PROFIT THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN TH E MARKET VALUE OF THE POWER PRODUCED BY CAPTIVE PLANT AT THE RATE OF 4.9PER UNIT. WE NOTED THAT THE SIMILAR ISSUE HAS ARISEN BEFORE THE MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF WEST CO AST PAPER MILLS LTD V/S JCIT REPORTED IN (2006) 100 TTJ (MUMBAI ) 833, IN WHICH THE TRIBUNAL, ON THIS ISSUE, WHAT SHO ULD BE THE PRICE ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE POWER GENERATED AND CONSU MED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING THE DEDUC TION AVAILABLE UNDER SECTION 80IA AFTER AVAILING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IA (9) HAS HELD AS UNDER: '32. HAVING HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR THE DEDUCTION AVAILABLE UNDER SECTION 80IA, THE NEXT QUESTION IS WHAT SHOULD BE THE PRICE ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE POWER GENERATED AN D CONSUMED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTIO N IS READILY AVAILABLE IN SUB-SECTION (8) OF S .80IA WHICH READS AS BELOW: 5 ITA NOS.876 TO 879/AHD/2017/SRT (A.YS: 2006-07, 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2011-12) C.O NOS. 01 TO 03/SRT/2017 M/S. PRAGATI GLASS PVT. LTD. '80IA(8) WHERE ANY GOODS [OR SERVICES] HELD FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE ELIGIBLE BUSINESS ARE TRANSFERRED TO ANY OTH ER BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE, OR WHERE ANY GOODS [OR SERVICES] HELD FOR THE PURPOSES OF ANY OTHER BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE ARE TRANSFERRED TO THE ELIGIBLE BUSINESS A ND, IN EITHER CASE, THE CONSIDERATION, IF ANY, FOR SUCH TRANSFER AS RECORDED IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ELIGIBLE BUSINESS DOES NOT CORR ESPOND TO THE MARKET VALUE OF SUCH GOODS [OR SERVICES] AS ON THE DATE OF THE TRANSFER, THEN; FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE DEDUCTI ON UNDER THIS SECTION, THE PROFITS AND GAINS OF SUCH ELIGIBLE BUS INESS SHALL BE COMPUTED AS IF THE TRANSFER, IN EITHER CASE, HAD BE EN MADE AT THE MARKET VALUE OF SUCH GOODS [OR SERVICES] AS ON THAT DATE ' THE ABOVE CONCEPT OF TRANSFER PRICING IS ALSO APPAR ENT IN R.7 OF IT RULES, 1962 PROVIDED FOR DETERMINING THE INCO ME FROM AGRICULTURAL PRODUCES CONSUMED BY THE AGRICULTURIST -ASSESSEE IN HIS BUSINESS AS RAW MATERIAL. THE RULE PROVIDES THAT IN THE CASE OF INCOME WHICH IS PARTIALLY AGRICULTURAL INCO ME AND PARTIALLY INCOME CHARGEABLE AS BUSINESS INCOME, IN DETERMINING THAT PART WHICH IS CHARGEABLE TO INCOME - TAX, THE MARKET VALUE OF ANY AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE WHICH HAS BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AND UTILIZED AS A RAW MATERI AL IN SUCH BUSINESS SHALL BE DEDUCTED AT THE PREVALENT MARKET VALUE. THIS PRINCIPLE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED AND UPHELD BY THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF THIRU AROORAN SUGARS LTD V/S CIT (1997) 142 CTR (SC) 9: (1997) 2271TR 432 (SC). THEREFORE, WE D IRECT THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY TO WORK OUT THE PROFITS ON THE BASIS OF THE PRICE OF THE POWER GENERATED BY THE ASSESSEE AT THE AVERAGE OF THE ANNUAL LANDED COST OF ELECTRICITY PU RCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM KARNATAKA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD DURING THE IMPUGNED PREVIOUS YEAR. IT MAY BE DETERMINED ON THE BASIS OF PAYMENT DETAILS AVAILABLE FROM THE BILLS I SSUED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, DURI NG THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ' 33. THIS ISSUE IS THEREFORE, DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE A SSESSEE' 12. IN THIS CASE ALSO, WE NOTED THAT THE COST OF ELECT RICITY PER UNIT PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM GEB IS RS.4.9 P ER UNIT. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF MUMBAI IT A NOS. 475 & 779/AHD/2014 (DCIT VS. PRAGATI G LASS WORKS P. LTD.) A. YS. 2008-09 & 2009-10-4- BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE C A SE OF WEST COAST PAPER MILLS LTD V/S JCIT (SUPRA), WE ARE OF THE VIEW T HAT THE COST OF ELECTRICITY PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSE E AT CAPTIVE UNIT MAY B E TAKEN AT MARKET VALUE AT RS.4.9 PER UNIT FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMMUTATION OF THE ELIGIBLE PROF IT OF THAT UNIT. NO CONTRARY DECISION WAS B ROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE BY THE LEARNED DR. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) AND DIRECT THE AO TO COMPUTE DEDUCTION U/S 80IA BY TAKING MARKET VALUE OF THE ELECTRICITY GENERATED BY THE ASSESSEE AT THE RATE OF RS. 4 9 PER UNIT. GROUND NO. 3 IS ALLOWED. ' 6 ITA NOS.876 TO 879/AHD/2017/SRT (A.YS: 2006-07, 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2011-12) C.O NOS. 01 TO 03/SRT/2017 M/S. PRAGATI GLASS PVT. LTD. 4. WIE THEREFORE ADOPT THE VERY REASONING HEREIN AS WELL TO AFFIRM THE CIT(A)S F INDINGS UNDER CHALLENGE. THIS FORMER SUBSTANTIVE GROUND RAISED AT AVENUE'S BEHEST IN BOT H THE APPEALS IS DECLINED. 3.1 IF THE OBSERVATION MADE IN THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER, IMPUGNED ORDER, ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 05.05.2017, ASSERTIONS MADE BY THE LD. RESPECTIVE COUNSEL AND THE MATERIAL FACTS, AVAILABL E ON RECORD, ARE KEPT IN JUXTAPOSITION AND ANALYZED, WE FIND THAT TH E TRIBUNAL IN THE AFORESAID O R DER, WHILE DELIBERATING UPON THE ISSUE HAS FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSE ITSELF FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 21003-04 AND 2004-05 ON IDENTICAL I SSUE OF CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S. 80IA OF THE ACT ALONG WITH V ARIOUS DECISIONS. IN THE PRESENT APPEAL ALSO THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICE R DISALLOWED THE CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF RS. 3,81,47,465/- U/S. 80IA OF THE ACT. THE MAIN REASON OF DISALLOWANCE IS THAT THE CAPTIVE PLA NT IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION. HOWEVER WE FIND THAT THE FACTS/ISSUE IS IDENTICAL THEREFORE IN THE ABSENCE OF CONTRARY FACTS, WE ARE EXPECTED TO FOLLOW THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH. 3.2 IF THIS ISSUE IS ANALYZED ON THE RULE OF CONSISTENCY, STILL THE ASSESSE IS HAVING A GOOD CASE IN ITS FAVOUR. WE ARE AWARE THAT PRINCIPLE OF RES JUDICATAIS STRICTLY NOT APPLICABLE IN INCOME TAX PROCEEDINGS AND E A CH YEAR IS INDEPENDENT. AT THE SAME TIME IT IS SETTLED PRINCIPLE OF LAW THAT CONSISTENCY CANNOT BE IGNORED. UNIFORMITY IN TREATMENT AND CONSISTENCY UNDER THE S AME FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IS ONE OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF THE JUD ICIAL PRINCIPLES WHICH C ANNOT BE BRUSHED ASIDE WITHOUT PROPER REASONING. SO FAR AS THE RULE OF CONSISTENCY IS CONCERNED, WE NOTE THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN EARLIER HAS ALLOWED THE CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S. 80IA OF THE ACT IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSE, THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT UNL ESS AND UNTIL CONTRARY FACTS ARE BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE REVENUE * NO 'U'-TURN IS PERMISSIBLE. THE LEARNED -ASSESSING OFFICER IS BOUN D BY RULE OF CONSISTENCY. THE FOLLOWING CASES SUPPORT THE CASE O F THE ASSESSEE : I. PARSHURAM POTTERY WORKS LTD. VS ITO LOO ITR 1 (SC) II. SECURITY PRINTERS 264 ITR 276(DEL.) III. CI T VS NEO POLYPACK PVT. LTD. 245 ITR 492 (DEL.) IV. C I T VS ALLIED FINANCE PVT. LTD. 289 ITR 318 (DEL.) V. BERGER PAINTS INDIA LTD. VS CIT 266 ITR 99 (SC) VI. DCIT VS UNITED VANASPATI (275 ITR 124) (AT)(CHANDIGARH ITAT) VII. UNION OF INDIA VS KUMUDINI N. DALAI 249 ITR 219 (SC) VIII. U NION OF INDIA VS SATISH PANNALAL SHAH 249 ITR 221 IX. B.F. VARGHESEVS STATE OF KERALA 72 ITR 726 (KER.) X. CIT VS NARENDRA DOSHI 254 ITR 606 (SC) XI. CIT VS SHIVSAGAR ESTATE 257 ITR 59 (SC) XII. PRADIP RAMANLAL SETH VS UOI 204 ITR 866 (GUJ.) XIII. RADHASWAMY SATSANGVS CIT 193 ITR 321 (SC) XIV. AGGARWAL WAREHOUSING & LEASING LTD. 257 ITR 23 5 (MP) 7 ITA NOS.876 TO 879/AHD/2017/SRT (A.YS: 2006-07, 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2011-12) C.O NOS. 01 TO 03/SRT/2017 M/S. PRAGATI GLASS PVT. LTD. 3.3 THE SUM AND SUBSTANCE OF THE AFORESAID JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS IS THAT ON THE BASIS PI PRINCIPLE OF JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE, CONSISTENCY HAS TO BE FOLLOWED AND ONCE IN A PARTIC ULAR YEAR, IF ANY VIEW IS TAKEN, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONTRARY MATER IAL, NO CONTRARY VIEW IS TO BE TAKEN AS FINALITY TO THE LITIGATION I S ALSO A PRINCIPLE WHICH HAS TO BE FOLLOWED. BEFORE US, NO CONTRARY FACTS OR ANY ADVERSE MATERIAL WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE .REVENUE, THE REFORE, ON THE PRINCIPLE OF CONSISTENCY ALSO, THE ASSESSEE IS HAVI NG A GOOD CASE IN HER FAVOUR. THUS, CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF FACTS AND THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS DISCUSSED HEREINABOVE THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS HEREBY DISMISSED. 6. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, SINCE, UNDISPUTEDLY FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF PRESENT AY 2006-07 ARE QUITE SIMILAR AND IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE AY 2007-08 AND 2010-11 THEREFO RE, WE HAVE NO HESITATION TO HOLD THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALLOWED DE DUCTION U/S. 80IA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT THE ACT) TO THE A SSESSEE BY DISMISSING APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AND UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF TH E LD. CIT(A) FOR THESE TWO YEARS. THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE S AME, WE HOLD THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS ALLOWED FOR ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S. 80IA OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE FOR AY 2006-07 AND THERE IS NO VALID REASO N TO INTERFERE WITH THE SAME. ACCORDINGLY, SOLE GROUND OF REVENUE BEING DE VOID OF MERITS IS DISMISSED. APPEALS OF REVENUE FOR AY 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2011-1 2: 7. SINCE, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF AY 2006-07 ARE SIMILAR AND IDENTICAL TO THESE THREE SUBSEQUENT AYS THEREFORE, OUT CONCLUSION RECORDED IN THE EARLIER PART OF THIS ORDER WOULD AP PLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS TO THESE APPEALS ALSO. ACCORDINGLY, THE SOLE GROUND O F REVENUE IN ALL THREE 8 ITA NOS.876 TO 879/AHD/2017/SRT (A.YS: 2006-07, 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2011-12) C.O NOS. 01 TO 03/SRT/2017 M/S. PRAGATI GLASS PVT. LTD. APPEALS ARE DISMISSED AND THE AO IS DIRECTED TO ALL OW DEDUCTION U/S. 80IA OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE. CROSS OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE IN C.O NOS. 02 & 0 3/SRT/2017 FOR AY 2008-09 & 2009-10: 8. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WANTS OF WITHDRAW TO THESE C.OS HENCE, THE SAME ARE DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN. 9. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE FOUR APPEALS OF THE REVEN UE AS WELL AS ALL C.OS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS DAY OF 1 1 TH OCTOBER, 2018. / SURAT; DATED : 11 TH OCTOBER, 2018 EDN # & / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. /THE APPELLANT; 2. /THE RESPONDENT; 3. $ ( ) /THE CONCERNED CIT(A); 4. THE CONCERNED PRL. CIT; 5. , , / DR, ITAT, SURAT; 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER , // TRUE COPY // * / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR , / ITAT, SURAT SD/- SD/- ( ) ( O.P.MEENA ) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( ) (C.M.GARG) /JUDICIAL MEMBER