M/S SARASWATI DYNAMICS PVT. LTD.,ROORKEE V. ACIT, HARIDWAR

MA 14/DDN/2022

AI Insights

The case revolves around a dispute concerning the deduction claims under Section 80IC of the Income Tax Act by M/s Saraswati Dynamics Pvt. Ltd. for the assessment year 2012-13. The primary issue was the disallowance of 100% of the interest on FDR and other interests by the Assessing Officer, which the assessee contended was incorrectly recorded as a full disallowance in the Tribunal's earlier order. The assessee argued that only 30% of these incomes were claimed as deductions, and thus, only 30% should be disallowed, not 100%. The Tribunal acknowledged the oversight and corrected the disallowance to 30% in their final order.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 836500 (ITAT-DEHRADUN)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 9 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 11-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 09-05-2022
• Laws Referred To: Section 80IC of the Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMAR PAL SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: SHILA GUPTA; SAKSHAM AGARWAL

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DEHRADUN BENCH: DEHRADUN BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA No.14/DDN/2022 Arising out of ITA No.847/Del/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13) M/s Saraswati Dynamics Pvt. Ltd., C-7, Industrial Estate, Roorkee-110 001. PAN-AAECS6262M Vs. ACIT, Circle Haridwar. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Ms. Shila Gupta, CA & Shri Saksham Agarwal, CA Department by Shri Amar Pal Singh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 09/01/2026 Date of Pronouncement 11/02/2026 O R D E R PER CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JM: Through this Miscellaneous Application (“MA” in short”), the Assessee is seeking to rectify the mistake apparent from the record in the order of the Tribunal at page 4 para 10. In the Misc. Application, the assessee had stated that in so far as interest on FDR, other interest is concerned the assessee had claimed only 30% as deduction u/s 80IC of the Printed from counselvise.com 2 MA No.14/DDN/2022 Act and whereas the Assessing Officer had disallowed 100%. It is submitted that during the course of hearing of appeal the Assessee contended that in the event of sustaining the disallowance at best what was claimed by the assessee only can be disallowed i.e. 30% and not 100%. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to page 4 para 10 of the Tribunal’s order submitted that the Tribunal held that duty draw back, interest on FDR, other interest are not derived from business of the assessee and, therefore, not entitled for deduction u/s 80IC of the Act. In the MA it is contended that the assessee though submitted that it had claimed only 30% deduction in respect of these incomes u/s 80IC, the Assessing Officer disallowed 100% and this fact was inadvertently omitted to considered by the Tribunal. Therefore, the Ld. Counsel submitted that the order be modified to the extent that the disallowance in respect of interest on FDR, other interest can only be disallowed to the extent of the claim made by the assessee i.e., 30% and not 100% as disallowed by the Assessing Officer. 2. Heard rival submissions perused the order of the Tribunal. We find that the Tribunal, though recorded the submissions of the assessee, however, while sustaining the disallowance inadvertently not given a finding that the disallowance should be restricted to only 30% being the claim made by the assessee and not 100% of such incomes which never claimed by the assessee as deduction u/s 80IC of the Act. This is a mistake apparent on record which needs rectification. Therefore, para 10 of the Tribunal’s order at page 4 shall be read as under: Printed from counselvise.com 3 MA No.14/DDN/2022 “10. Heard the rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below and the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case. On perusal of the order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08, we find that the Tribunal held that AMC charges is income derived from business of the assessee entitled for deduction under Section 80IC of the Act. Following the said decision, we direct the Assessing Officer to allow deduction under Section 80 IC of the Act in respect of AMC charges received by the assessee. In so far as the duty draw-back, interest on FDR, other interest are concerned, these incomes are not derived from business of the assessee. Hence, we hold that these incomes are not entitled for deduction under Section 80IC of the Act. However, the Assessing Officer is directed to consider the disallowance in respect of these incomes only to the extent of the claim made by the assessee i.e., 30% and not 100% as was contended by the Assessee and subject to verification.” 4. In the result, the MA filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 11.02.2026. Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH AGARWAL) (CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 11.02.2026 PK/Sr. Ps Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, DEHRADUN Printed from counselvise.com "