1
M/s Givaudan Flavours (I) Pvt Ltd.
ITA No. 702/Mum/2013
""
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI BENCH "G", MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND
SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No. : 702/Mum/2013
(Assessment year: 2008-09)
Asst./Dy. Commissioner of Income Vs M/s Givaudan Flavours (I)
Tax 1(3), Pvt Ltd,
Room No. 540, "Suraksha", 170 Jamshetji
5th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Tata Road, Churchgate,
M K Road, Mumbai -400 020 Mumbai -400 020
.:PAN: AAACL 1013 D
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by : Shri B D Naik
Respondent by : Shri Dharmesh Bafna &
Shri Arpit Agrawal
/Date of Hearing : 31-08-2015
/Date of Pronouncement : 04-09-2015
ORDER
, . .:
PER AMIT SHUKLA, JM:
The above captioned appeal filed by the revenue against the
order dated 26.11.2012, passed by CIT(A)-12 Mumbai, for the
quantum of assessment passed u/s 143(3) for the assessment year
2008-09 on following grounds:
1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the
case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is right in allowing the
assessee's claim of deduction u/s 80-IB of the Income-
tax Act, 1961.
2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the
case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the
deduction u/s 80-IB by relying on the decisions of ITO
vs Hindustan Petroleum Ltd. [16 ITD 574] CIT vs
Tyresoles Concessionaries [213 ITR 660] [Bom] when
they are regarding the Amalgamated company in the
scheme of Amalgamation under Sec. 391 to 394 of the
Company Act, whereas in the present case, the
2
M/s Givaudan Flavours (I) Pvt Ltd.
ITA No. 702/Mum/2013
assessee has purchased assets from an existing
company?"
2. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted
that the issue of 80IB has been decided in favour of the assessee
by the Tribunal in the assessee's own case right from assessment
year 2003-04 to assessment year 2006-07, therefore, following the
same, deduction should be continued to be allowed in this year.
3. Even Ld. DR accepted that the issue of claim of 80IB has
been decided in favour of the assessee in the earlier years by the
Tribunal.
4. Brief facts are that the assessee has claimed deduction u/s
80IB at Rs. 2,40,49,167/- in respect of the following units:
Sr. Unit Year of eligibility Amount eligible
No.
1 Newdental 9th year- 1,91,97,174
2 Savoury 9th year 48,51,993
Total 2,40,49,167
The Assessing Officer noted that the issue of deduction u/s
80IB had arisen in the earlier assessment years, wherein it was
held that units on which deduction u/s 80-IB have been claimed
had actually been transferred from Hindustan Uniliver Ltd.
Accordingly, it was held that, since assessee company has been
formed after purchasing of plant and machinery along with the
premises and other two other assets from the earlier company,
therefore, it is a violation of section 80IB as the new entity is
formed after the transfer of assets already in use by another
company.
5. The Ld. CIT(A) following the Tribunal order for the earlier
years has allowed the claim as per the discussion appearing at
pages 5 to 9 of the appellate order, wherein, relevant finding of the
Tribunal have been reproduced. The Tribunal in the earlier years
has given categorical finding of fact and that assessee had acquired
units from Hindustan Unilever Ltd. as a going concern, vide
3
M/s Givaudan Flavours (I) Pvt Ltd.
ITA No. 702/Mum/2013
agreement dated 29.06.2001 and there is no splitting up or re-
computation and had also claimed deduction u/s 80IB during that
year, on such unit. Further, the claim of 80IB have been allowed in
AY 2001-02 by the Department. Tribunal in assessee's own case
for the assessment years 2002-03, 2004-05 & 2005-06 have been
allowing the claim of the assessee for deduction u/s 80IB. Once
such a claim has been allowed in the case of the assessee and
same deduction has to be allowed as a matter of consequence,
because same facts and reasoning are permeating through in this
year also. Thus, we decline to interfere with the direction given by
the CIT(A).
6. In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 4th September, 2015.
Sd/- Sd/-
(RAJESH KUMAR) (AMIT SHUKLA)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mumbai, Date: 4th September, 2015
/Copy to:-
1) /The Appellant.
2) /The Respondent.
3) The CIT(A) -2, Mumbai.
4) The CIT 1/Concerned ______, Mumbai.
5) "", , /
The D.R. "G" Bench, Mumbai.
6)
Copy to Guard File.
/By Order
/ / True Copy / /
/
,
Dy./Asstt. Registrar
I.T.A.T., Mumbai
* ..
*Chavan, Sr.PS
|