The CBDT has also issued a Circular No.1/2016 dated 15.12.2016 wherein it has been clarified that the initial Asst. year for the purpose of Section 801 A(5) is not the year of commencement of production, but it is the first year of claim of deduction at the assessee's choice out of block period of 10 years. In the appellant'scase, the losses incurred by it were already set off and adjusted against the profits of the earlier years. During the current Assessment year 2011- 12, the appellant exercised the option under s.80-IA(2). During the relevant period, there was no unabsorbed depreciation or loss of t he eligible undertaking and the same were already absorbed in the earlier years. Thus there was positive profit during the year and the deduction claimed was correct as per the provisions of section 80IA(5).
6.3 The facts of thecasecontinue to be same and hence following the clarification as per circular No.1 /2016 issued by CBDT, ratio of Hon'ble ITAT Ahmedabad's judgment in thecaseof Sadbhav Engineering Ltd. (supra) as well as relying upon the decision of CIT(A) in earlier year in the appellant's owncaseit is held that appellant is entitled to deduction U/S.80IA on the profits derived from wind mill unit amounting to Rs. 2,90,55,441/-.
In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed.
Sec. 10AA of Income Tax Act, 1961— Deduction — The assessee claimed deduction under section 10AA for the first time in the year 2009-10 which was allowed by the AO himself, but this order was set aside by the ld.CIT under section 263 of the Act. The order of the CIT under section 263 passed in supervisory jurisdiction, did not meet approval of the Tribunal, and orders for the Asstt.Year 2009-10 and 2010-11 were set aside by the Tribunal in ITA No.1395 and 1396/Ahd/2013. The next assessment year was A.Y.2011-12 wherein the CIT(A) allowed deduction and order of the.CIT(A) was upheld by the Tribunal. Therefore, consistently, the assessee has been allowed deduction under section 10AA on the profit derived by it in its SEZ unit including on the interest income which has been assessed as business income derived from SEZ. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere in order of the CIT(A) in both these years. The Revenue’s appeal in both the years rejected. - ZAVERI AND CO P. LTD. V/s DEPUTY CIT - [2020] 23 ITCD Online 121 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
The CBDT has also issued a Circular No.1/2016 dated 15.12.2016 wherein it has been clarified that the initial Asst. year for the purpose of Section 801 A(5) is not the year of commencement of production, but it is the first year of claim of deduction at the assessee's choice out of block period of 10 years. In the appellant'scase, the losses incurred by it were already set off and adjusted against the profits of the earlier years. During the current Assessment year 2011- 12, the appellant exercised the option under s.80-IA(2). During the relevant period, there was no unabsorbed depreciation or loss of t he eligible undertaking and the same were already absorbed in the earlier years. Thus there was positive profit during the year and the deduction claimed was correct as per the provisions of section 80IA(5).
6.3 The facts of thecasecontinue to be same and hence following the clarification as per circular No.1 /2016 issued by CBDT, ratio of Hon'ble ITAT Ahmedabad's judgment in thecaseof Sadbhav Engineering Ltd. (supra) as well as relying upon the decision of CIT(A) in earlier year in the appellant's owncaseit is held that appellant is entitled to deduction U/S.80IA on the profits derived from wind mill unit amounting to Rs. 2,90,55,441/-.
In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed.
Sec. 10AA of Income Tax Act, 1961— Deduction — The assessee claimed deduction under section 10AA for the first time in the year 2009-10 which was allowed by the AO himself, but this order was set aside by the ld.CIT under section 263 of the Act. The order of the CIT under section 263 passed in supervisory jurisdiction, did not meet approval of the Tribunal, and orders for the Asstt.Year 2009-10 and 2010-11 were set aside by the Tribunal in ITA No.1395 and 1396/Ahd/2013. The next assessment year was A.Y.2011-12 wherein the CIT(A) allowed deduction and order of the.CIT(A) was upheld by the Tribunal. Therefore, consistently, the assessee has been allowed deduction under section 10AA on the profit derived by it in its SEZ unit including on the interest income which has been assessed as business income derived from SEZ. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere in order of the CIT(A) in both these years. The Revenue’s appeal in both the years rejected. - ZAVERI AND CO P. LTD. V/s DEPUTY CIT - [2020] 23 ITCD Online 121 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)