ITO Ward-I, v. Advance Valves Global,

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH-A NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.E. VEERABHADRAPPA VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI H.S. SIDHU JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.NO.2096 /DEL/2008 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD-1 VS. M/S ADVANCE VALVES GLOBAL NOIDA. B-33 SECTOR-2 NOIDA. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : MRS. BATIONA KAUSHIK SR. D.R. RESPONDENT BY : MR. AJAY VOHRA AND MR. SACHIT JOLLY ADVOCATE. O R D E R PER H.S. SIDHU JM: REVENUE HAS FILED THE CAPTIONED APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) GHAZIABAD DATED 4.2.2008 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW BY NOT APPR ECIATING THE FACTS THAT TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKING OF INDIVIDUAL IS HIT B Y THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IB(12) OF I.T. ACT AND THAT THE DEDUCTION S U/S 80IB IS NOT ALLOWABLE. 2. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A0 ON THE ABOVE IS SUES BEING ERRONEOUS IN LAW AND ON FACTS BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ORDER OF THE A.O. BE RESTORED. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE VARIOUS DECISIONS RENDERED ITA NO.2096/DEL/08 2 BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURTS INCLUDING THE DECISION O F HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. HAJI MOHD. ALI MOHD ISH AQ 295 ITR 109 (ALL) AND THE DECISION OF JURISDICTIONAL ITAT DELHI BENCH-G NEW DELHI DATED 30.9.2009 IN THE CASE OF ACIT NOIDA V. M/S PRISMA ELECTRONICS NOID A IN I.T.A.NO.3378/DEL/2009. THE LD. COUNSEL STATED THAT THE REVENUE HAD TAKEN S IMILAR GROUND OF APPEAL IN THE AFORESAID CASE AND THE ITAT DISMISSED THE SAME VIDE ORDER DATED 30.9.2009. ACCORDINGLY HE PLEADED THAT THE PRESENT APPEAL FIL ED BY THE REVENUE MAY BE DISMISSED. 4. THE LD. D.R. RELIED ON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PAR TIES AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT RECORDS. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE DECISION OF THE JURISDIC TIONAL ITAT DELHI BENCH-G NEW DELHI DATED 30.9.2009 IN THE CASE OF ACIT NOID A V. M/S PRISMA ELECTRONICS NOIDA IN I.T.A.NO.3378/DEL/2009 RELIED UPON BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE THE RELEVAN T PORTION FROM PARA 4 OF THE ORDER OF LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IS REPRODUCE D HEREUNDER:- IT IS RELEVANT TO NOTE THAT THE UNDERTAKING WAS F ORMED ON 28.12.1999 IN DISTRICT UNA HIMACHAL PRADESH. THE LD. AUTHOR ISED REPRESENTATIVE HAS ALSO BROUGHT ABOUT THAT THE SAID UNDERTAKING W AS NOT FORMED BY SPLITTING UP OR RECONSTRUCTION OF BUSINESS ALREADY IN EXISTENCE. THE SAID UNDERTAKING WAS NOT FORMED BY TRANSFER TO THE NEW U NIT OF MACHINERY OR PLANT PREVIOUSLY USED FOR ANY BUSINESS. THE LD. AUT HORISED REPRESENTATIVE FURTHER BROUGHT ABOUT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT OF THE UNIT AS A SOLE PROPRIETORSHIP OF MR. PRANAY SHANKER GARG FOR A.Y. 2001-02 2003-04 AND 2004-05(UPTO 31. 10.2003) U/S 143(3) ITA NO.2096/DEL/08 3 OF THE ACT AND FOUND THAT THE UNIT SATISFIED ALL T HE CONDITIONS FOR THE RESPECTIVE YEARS AND HENCE ALLOWED DEDUCTION U/S 8 0IB. BEFORE GOING INTO THE REASONINGS AND INFERENCES IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IT IS RELEVANT TO MENTION THAT NOTHING CAN BE ADDED OR SUBTRACTED TO THE TERMS OR WORDS USED IN A STATUTORY PROVISION . FOR HARMONIOUS AND HOLISTIC INTERPRETATION LEGISLATIVE INTENT DOE S HAVE CRUCIAL BEARING BUT THERE SHOULD BE EXPLICIT/SUFFICIENT MATERIAL TO ARR IVE AT LEGISLATIVE INTENT. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE HAS TAKEN THE PL EA THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT HIT BY SECTION 80IB(12) BECAUSE THE DENIAL ENVISAGED IN SECTION 80IB(12) COVERS UNDERTAKING OF AN INDIAN C OMPANY. THE PROVISION U/S 80IB(12) STATED WHERE ANY UNDERTAKING OF AN INDIAN COMPANY WHICH IS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION UNDER THIS S ECTION IS TRANSFERRED . SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS NOT A COMPANY THE ASSES SEE IS NOT HIT BY PROVISIONS U/S 80IB(12). IT IS ALSO ARGUED THAT THE INFERENCE DRAWN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT HAD IT BEEN THE INTE NTION OF THE LEGISLATURE TO ALLOW THE BEFIT TO ASSESSEE OTHER THAN COMPANY THE SAME WOULD HAVE BEEN MENTIONED IN THE PROVISION U/S 80IB(12) ALONG WITH COMPANY IN MISLEADING. IF THERE IS SUCH LEGISLATIVE INTENT TO DENY THE BENEFIT TO ASSESSEE OTHER THAN COMPANY IT HAS TO BE EXPLICIT AND SPECIFIC AND SHOULD EMANATE DIRECTLY FROM THE TEST OF THE STATUTE. SIN CE THERE IS NEITHER SPECIFIC MENTION OF ASSESSES OTHER THAN COMPANY IN THE PROVISION U/S 80IB(12) NOR THERE IS ANY MENTION THAT TRANSFER OF AN UNDERTAKING OWNED BY ASSESSEE OTHER THAN COMPANY WOULD NOT BE ENTITLE D TO DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE APPEAR S TO BE LOGICALLY CORRECT. SIMILARLY THE INFERENCE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT SECTION 10A(7A) WAS BROUGHT INTO THE STATUTE TO GRANT BENEF IT ONLY THE DEMERGER/AMALGAMATION TO THE AMALGAMATING OR THE RE SULTING COMPANY REQUIRES DEEPER EXAMINATION. THE LD.AR HAS ARGUED THAT THE OBJECTIVE OF SECTION 10A(7A) IS TO REGULATE THE DEDUCTION IN THE EVENT OF TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKING OF A COMPANY. IT NOWHERE DEFERS TO TRA NSFER OF UNDERTAKING OF ASSESSEE OTHER THAN COMPANY. HENCE TAKING OUT ANY CUE IN RESPECT OF ASSESSEE OTHER THAN COMPANY FROM THE PROVISION U/S 10A(7A) IS ERRONEOUS. ON PERUSAL OF SECTION 10A97A) IT IS NO TED THAT THE PROVISION COMMENCES AS UNDER: WHERE ANY UNDERTAKING OF AN INDIAN COMPANY WHICH I S ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION UNDER THIS SECTION IS TRANSFERRED.. ITA NO.2096/DEL/08 4 THE INITIAL OPERATIVE TEXT OF THE STATUTE U/S 10A(7 A) AND U/S 80IB(12) IS IDENTICAL TO THE EXTENT THAT BOTH ENVISAGES UNDERTAKING OF AN INDIAN COMPANY. THERE IS NO DIRECT OR INDIRECT EXPLICIT O R EVEN IMPLICIT REFERENCE TO ASSESSEE OTHER THAN INDIA COMPANY IN THE SAID PROVISION. HENCE APPARENTLY TRANSFER OF AN UNDERTAKING OF AN ASSESSE E OTHER THAN COMPANY IS NOT HIT BY PROVISION U/S 10A97A). THE OBSERVATION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE CBDT CIRCULAR DATED 5.9.2003 WAS NOT INTENDED TO GIVE BENEFIT TO UNITS OF THE ASSESSEE OTHER THAN COMPANY REQUIRES FURTHER EXAMINATION. T HE PROVISON U/S 10A(9)/10B(9) WHICH HAS BEEN OMITTED BY THE FINANA CE ACT 2003 W.E.F. 1.4.2004 STIPULATES AS UNDER: WHETHER DURING ANY PREVIOUS YEAR THE OWNERSHIP OR THE NENEFICIAL INTEREST IN THE UNDERTAKING IS TRANSFERRED BY ANY M EANS THE DEDUCTION UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) SHALL NOT BE ALLOWE D TO THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR RELEVANT TO SUCH P REVIOUS YEAR AND THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE FORESAID IT IS SEEN THAT TH E AFORESAID PROVISION CLEARLY PROHIBITED TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKIN G OF ANY ASSESSEE WHETHER CORPORATE OR NON-CORPORATE. HOWEVER THIS RESTRICTIVE REGIME WAS OMITTED FROM THE STATUTE W.E.F. 1.4.04. IN VIE W OF THE ABOVE OMISSION OF SECTION FROM THE STATUTE W.E.F. 1.4.04 THE TRANS FER OF UNDERTAKING OF THE APPELLANT IS NOT HIT BY SECTION 10A(9) AS THE TRANS FER HAS TAKEN PLACE ON 1.11.2004. FOR ASCERTAINING THE INTENT OF THE PROVISION U/S 10 (7A0 IT IS ALSO RELEVANT TO CONSIDER THAT THE RESTRICTIVE REGIME U/ S 10A(9) HAD IN ITS AMBIT ALL ENTITIES WHEREAS THE RESTRICTIVE REGIME U/S 10 A(7A) HAS IN ITS AMBIT ONLY CORPORATE ASSESSEE MEANING THEREBY THAT IN THE ORIG INAL SCHEME THE LEGISLATURE INTENDED TO PROHIBIT TRANSFER OF AN UND ERTAKING OF ALL ENTITIES WHEREAS IN THE MODIFIED RESTRICTIVE REGIME COVERS T RANSFER OF UNDERTAKING OF AN INDIA COMPANY ONLY. MOREOVER THE RESTRICTIVE REGIME U/S 10A(7A) ONLY REGULATES THE DEDUCTION VIZ. NO DEDUCTION WOUL D BE ADMISSIBLE TO THE PREVIOUS OWNER WHEREAS THE SAME WOULD BE ADMISSIBLE TO THE CURRENT OWNER. IT IS THIS CONTEXT THE CIRCULAR NO.7/2003 BECOMES R ELEVANT WHEREIN IT IS STIPULATED THAT AS A CONSEQUENT SUB-SECTION (() (9A) AND THE EXPLANATION BELOW THERETO IN SECTION 10A AND 10B BECOME REDUNDA NT AND HAVE BEEN OMITTED. ITA NO.2096/DEL/08 5 CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACTS ONCE SECTION 10A(9) HAS BEEN OMITTED NO VALID REFERENCE COULD BE MADE TO SECTION 10A(9) FOR INTERPRETING 10A(7A) AND NO MEANING FROM SECTION 10A(9) COULD BE IMPORTED/ADDUCED TO INTERPRET SECTION 10A(7A). ANOTHER OBSERVATION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT AS THE ELIGIBLE UNDERTAKING ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AN OLD UNDE RTAKING AND MOST OF THE MACHINERY IS OLD MACHINERY IT IS NOT ENTITLED T O DEDUCTION U/S 80IB REQUIRES CONSIDERATION. THE PROVISION U/S 80IB(2)( I) & 80IB(2)(II) MAY BE RELEVANT TO EXAMINE THE ISSUE. THE RELEVANT PROVIS ON U/S 80IB(2) ENVISAGES AS UNDER: (2) THIS SECTION APPLIES TO ANY INDUSTRIAL UNDERTA KING WHICH FULFILLS ALL THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS NAMELY (I) IT IS NOT FORMED BY SPLITTING UP OR THE RECONST RUCTION OF A BUSINESS ALREADY IN EXISTENCE. PROVIDED.. (II) IT IS NOT FORMED BY THE TRANSFER OT A NEW BUSINESS OF MACHINERY OR PLANT PREVIOUSLY USED FOR ANY PURPOSES . FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE AFORESAID CONDITION IT IS S EEN THAT THE KEY WORD IN THE SECTION IS INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING AND FORM/FORMED . THE LD. AR HAS POINTED OUT THAT WHAT IS TO BE SCRUT INIZED IS THE FORMATION OF THE UNDERTAKING. THE WORD SPLITTING UP AND THE WORD RECONSTRUCTION IS ATTACHED TO BUSINESS ALREADY IN EXISTENCE. THESE WORDS QUALIFY BUSINESS AND NOT OWNERSHIP OF BUSINESS. IF THE BUSINESS OF UNDERTAKING IS FORMED BY SPLITTING UP OR BY RECONST RUCTION THEN THE UNDERTAKING WILL NOT BE QUALIFIED FOR CLAIMING EXEM PTION. IN THE INSTANT CASE THE UNDERTAKING IS NOT FORMED BY THE SPLITTING UP OR RECONSTRUCTION OF BUSINESS BUT THE SAME IS ALREADY IN EXISTENCE. HEN CE THE ASSESSEE IS NOT HIT BY PROVISION U/S 80IB(2)(I). AS REGARDS PLANT AND MACHINERY (REF.80IB(2)(II) TH E LD.AR HAS POINTED OUT THAT WHAT REQUIRES TO BE SCRUTINIZED IS WHETHER THE UNDERTAKING ITA NO.2096/DEL/08 6 IS FORMED BY OLD PLANT AND MACHINERY. THE UNDERTAKING WAS A DMITTEDLY FORMED BY OLD PLANT AND MACHINERY. THE UNDERTAKING WAS ADMITTEDLY FORMED IN THE YEAR 1999 AND SINCE THEN FOR VARIOUS YEARS THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IB HAS BEEN ALLOWED. IN THE YEAR 2003 THE U NDERTAKING IS NOT BEING FORMED. IT IS IN FACT ONLY CHANGING HANDS. IT HAS ALSO BEEN EMPHATICALLY POINTED OUT THAT THE UNDERTAKING IS CHANGING HAND A S A GOING CONCERN. SINCE THE UNDERTAKING IS NOT BEING FORMED IN THE YE AR 2003 IT CANNOT BE HIT BY PROVISION U/S 80IB(2)(II). THE LD. AR HAS ALSO PLACED RELIANCE IN THE DECISION OF TECH. BOOK ELECTRONIC SERVICES (P) LTD. VS. ADDL. CIT REPORTED IN 100 ITD 125. THE LD. AR HAS ALSO REFERRED TO JU DICIAL DICTIONARY BY KJ. IYER WHERE THE WORD RECONSTRUCTION IS EXPRESSED B Y SYNONYMOUS REBUILD AND IT HAS BEEN ARGUED THAT IF THERE IS CHANGE OF O WNERSHIP FROM ONE PERSON TO ANOTHER BUT THE BUSINESS CONTINUED TO THE SAME IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE UNDERTAKING IS FORMED AS A RESULT OF RECONSTRUCTION. CONSIDERING THE AFORESAID APPARENTLY IT IS SEEN TH AT THE APPELLANT IS NOT HIT BY PROVISION U/S 80IB(2)(I) & 80IB(2)(II). THE LD. AR HAS FURTHER RELIED UPON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. II S INFOTECH LTD. REPORTED IN 82 TTJ 174 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN DECIDED THAT THE BENEFITS ARE ALWAYS ATTACHED TO INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT WHO OWNS IT. FROM PERUSAL OF THE DECISION AS ALSO FROM THE LAW A PPLICABLE AS ON DATE SPECIFICALLY AFTER THE OMISSION OF SECTION 10A(9) W .E.F. 1.4.04 WHAT CLEARLY EMERGES IS THAT THE DEDUCTION IS UNDERTAKING SPECIF IC AND NOT ASSESSEE SPECIFIC. THE LD. AR HAS FURTHER BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE THAT T HE CBDT IN RESPECT OF SIMILAR RELIEF UNDER SECTION 84 OF THE A CT HAD TAKEN A VIEW THAT THE RELIEF WOULD BE AVAILABLE FOR SUCCESSOR IN F.NO .15/5/630-IT(A-I) DATED 13.12.63. THE BOARD AGREE THAT BENEFIT OF SECTION 84 ATTACHE S TO UNDERTAKING AND NOT TO THE OWNER THEREOF. THE SUCCESSOR WILL B E ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT FOR THE UNEXPLAINED PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS PR OVIDED THE UNDERTAKING IS TAKEN OVER AS A RUNNING CONCERN. ITA NO.2096/DEL/08 7 IT HAS ALSO BEEN ARGUED THAT THE AFORESAID INSTRUC TION HAS BEEN FOLLOWED FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 80J OF THE ACT IN THE FO LLOWING CASES: (I) CIT VS. P.K. ENGINEERING AND FORGING (PVT.) LT D. 87 TAXMAN 101. (II) AGS TIMBER AND CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. V S. CIT 233 ITR 207 (MAD.) FINALLY THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE HAS REL IED UPON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. HAJI MOHD. ISHAQ (2007) 295 ITR 109 (ALL.) WHEREIN IN THE CONTEXT OF SEC. 80J THE HONBLE COU RT HAS LAID DOWN THAT THERE SHOULD HARDLY BE ANY DOUBT THAT MERE CHANGE I N CONSTITUTION SHOULD NOT LOSE THE CONTINUED BENEFIT OF RELIEF. IT HAS BE EN PRONOUNCED THAT MERE CHANGE OF CONSTITUTION OF THE ELIGIBLE NEW INDUSTRI AL UNDERTAKING ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80J OF THE ACT WOULD NOT LOSE THE CON TINUED BENEFIT OF RELIEF IN CASE THE UNDERTAKING IS TAKEN OVER AS A RUNNING CONCERN. THE HIGH COURT HAS ALSO RELIED UPON CIRCULAR F.NO. 15.5.1963 -IT(AI) DATED DECEMBER 13 1963 WHICH WAS ISSUED IN RESPECT OF R ELIEF U/S 84 REFERRED TO IN THE PRECEDING PARA. CONSIDERING THE AFORESAID FACTS OF THE CASE AND PRO POSITION OF LAW IT IS HELD THAT THE APPELLANT IS ENTITLED TO DEDUCT ION U/S 80IB. ACCORDINGLY ADDITION AMOUNTING TO RS.50 55 148/- IS HEREBY DELE TED. 6. KEEPING IN VIEW THE AFORESAID DETAILED FINDINGS GIVEN BY THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AS WELL AS THE DECISION OF JURI SDICTIONAL ITAT DELHI BENCH-G NEW DELHI DATED 30.9.2009 RENDERED IN THE CASE OF A CIT NOIDA V. M/S PRISMA ELECTRONICS NOIDA IN I.T.A.NO.3378/DEL/2009 WE AR E OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT ISSUE RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN ITS GROUND OF A PPEAL HAS ALREADY BEEN ADJUDICATED BY THE JURISDICTIONAL ITAT (SUPRA) IN F AVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND ITA NO.2096/DEL/08 8 AGAINST THE REVENUE BY DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS OF THE JURISDICTIONAL ITAT AS CONTAIN ED IN PARA 3 ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER FOR READY REFERENCE:- 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND CA REFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. U/S 8 0IB DEDUCTION IS ALLOWED TO SMALL SCALE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING WHICH BEGINS MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCE ARTICLE AT ANY TIME DURING THE PERIOD BEGINNING ON 1 ST APRIL 1995 AND ENDING ON 31 ST MARCH 2002. AS PER SUB-SECTION (2) NO DEDUCTION WILL BE ALLOWED TO AN INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING WHICH IS FORMED BY SPL ITTING UP OR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF A BUSINESS ALREADY IN EXISTENCE AND THAT IT IS NOT FORMED BY TRANSFER OF A NEW BUSINESS OF MACHINERY OR PLANT PREVIOUSLY USED FOR ANY PURPOSE. IN THE INSTANT CASE ASSESSEE FIRM WA S ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURE OF ELECTRONIC DURABLES IN PROPRIETORSHI P CAPACITY. HOWEVER THE CONSTITUTION OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM CHANGE BY ADM ISSION OF A PARTNER THEREIN. THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IB WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE PARTNERSHIP FIRM IN ASSESSING OFFICER 2005-06 WHICH WAS DECLINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE PLEA THAT THE WAS TRANSFER OF PLANT AND MACHINERY ALREADY IN USE IN THE BUSINESS OF PROPRIETORSHIP FI RM. HOWEVER THERE WAS NO TRANSFER OF PLANT AND MACHINERY AS ALLEGED BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER . ON THE CONVERSION OF PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM INTO PARTN ERSHIP FIRM THERE WAS NO TRANSFER OF PLANT AND MACHINERY TO THE NEW FIRM BUT IT WAS TRANSFER OF INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING AS A WHOLE ALONGWITH ALL THE ASSETS AND LIABILITIES. NEITHER THERE WAS ANY SPLITTING UP NOR RECONSTRUCTI ON OF BUSINESS ALREADY IN EXISTENCE BUT IT WAS A CASE OF CHANGE IN THE CO NSTITUTION OF THE SAME INDUSTRIAL CONCERN WHICH CONTINUED TO MANUFACTURE T HE SAME ITEM EVEN AFTER ADMISSION OF A PARTNER. THUS BOTH THE CONDI TIONS WHICH DISQUALIFY THE DEDUCTION ARE NOT PRESENT IN THE INSTANT CASE. WE THEREFORE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) FOR ALLOWING C LAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IB FOR THE REMAINING PERIOD OF ITS ELIGIBILITY. ITA NO.2096/DEL/08 9 RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISION RENDERED BY THE JURISDICTIONAL ITAT IN THE CASE OF M/S PRISMA ELECTRONICS NOIDA IN I.T.A. NO.3378/DEL/2009 WE AGREE WITH THE DETAILED FINDINGS GIVEN BY THE LEARNED FIR ST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IN HIS IMPUGNED ORDER. NO INTERFERENCE IN HIS WELL-REASON ED ORDER IS CALLED FOR. WE ACCORDINGLY UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED FIRST A PPELLATE AUTHORITY AND DISMISS THE PRESENT APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE. 7. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23.4.2010. SD/- SD/- ( G.E. VEERABHADRAPPA) ( H.S. SIDHU ) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 23 RD APRIL 2010. VSK COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT-REVENUE 2. RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE 3. CIT(A) 4. ITO 5. DR ITAT NEW DELHI. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR