The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Panaji., Panaji V. M/s Coral Clinical Systems., Goa

MA 58/PAN/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3912 (ITAT-PANAJI)
• Duration Of Justice: 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 14-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 17-12-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRASHANT GADEKAR LD
• Section: 80IB

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA S. SAINI , HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN , HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER M A NO S . 5 7,58 & 59 /PNJ/201 5 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NOS.322, 323 & 324/ PNJ/2014) : (ASST. Y R S : 200 9 - 10, 2010 - 11 & 2011 - 12 ) ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1) , PANAJI , GOA ( APPELLANT) VS. M/S CORAL CLINICAL SYSTEMS , A - 3 , GITANJALI , DR. REGO BAGH, ALT O - SANTA CRUZ , BAMBOLIM C OMPLEX, GOA. PAN : A ABFC8044P . (RESPONDENT) A PPELLANT BY : SHRI PRASHANT GADEKAR, LD. DR. RE SPONDENT BY : SHRI PRAMOD VAIDYA , ADV . , SHRI LORENCE J. MALEKAR, C.A. & SHRI MANJUNATH HEGDE, C.A. D ATE OF HEARING : 1 4 / 0 1 /201 6 DATE OF ORDER : 1 4 / 0 1 /201 6 O R D E R PER NARENDRA S. SAINI : THESE ARE T HREE M ISCELLANEOUS PETI TIONS FILED BY THE REVENUE IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO S . 322, 323 & 324 /PNJ/201 4 DATED 09 .0 7 .2015. 2 . SHRI PRASHANT GADEKAR, LD. DR REPRE SENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE AND SHRI PRAMOD VAIDYA , ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI LORENCE J. MALEKAR, C.A AND SHRI MANJUNATH HEGDE, C.A , REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. 3 . IT WAS SUBMITTED BY T HE LD. DR THAT WHILE DECIDING THE REVENUES APPEAL THE TRIBUNAL HAD NOT FOLLOWED THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF M/S ZEPHYR 2 MA NOS. 55&56/ PNJ/2015 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NOS.104&105/PNJ/2015) (ASST. YRS: 2008 - 09) BIOMEDICALS IN RESPECT OF THE ISSUE OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) AND IN RESPECT OF THE ISSUE OF THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IB IN RESPECT OF THE VAT INCEN TIVE, T HE DECISION IN T HE CASE OF LIBERTY INDIA HAD NOT BEEN CONSIDERED. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE MISTAKE WAS LIABLE TO BE RECTIFIED. 4. IN REPLY THE LD. AR, VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTE D THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL S UBMISSIONS. IT HAS BEEN CATEGORICALLY HELD IN THE ISSUE OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) THAT THE REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES WAS NOT LIABLE FOR TDS U/S 194C. THE REVENUE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO POINT OUT ANY MISTAKE IN THE FINDING. IN REGARD TO THE ISSUE OF DEDUCTION U /S 80IB ON THE VAT INCENTIVE THE TRIBUNAL HAS FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE GUWAHATI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MEGHALAYA STEELS LTD, WHEREIN THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF LIBERTY INDIA HAS BEEN CONSIDERED. CONSEQUENTLY, TH ERE IS NO ERROR IN THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL WHICH CA LLS FOR ANY RECTIFICATION. CONSEQUENTLY, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED . 7 . ORDER PR ONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 4 . 0 1 .201 6 . SD/ - ( GEORGE MATHAN ) JUDI CIAL ME MBER SD/ - ( NARENDRA S. SAINI ) AACCOUNTANT M EMBER P LACE : PANAJI - GOA DATED : 1 4 / 0 1 /201 6 *A* 3 MA NOS. 55&56/ PNJ/2015 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NOS.104&105/PNJ/2015) (ASST. YRS: 2008 - 09) COPY TO : (1) APPELLANT (2) RESPONDENT (3) CIT CONCERNED (4) CIT(A) CONCERNED (5) D.R (6) GUARD FILE TRUE COPY, BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI