आदेश/ORDER 

PER KULDIP SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER):

Aforesaid appeals bearing common question of law and facts are being disposed by way of composite order to avoid repetition of discussion.

2. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(3)(2), Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the revenue] by filing of aforesaid appeals sought to set aside impugned orders dated 30.07.19, 23.08.19 and 04.12.18 for Assessment Year 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 respectively on the grounds interalia that

1. Appeal bearing ITA No. 6200/Mum/2019 for AY 2011-12

1. "On the fact and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance u/s 80IB of Rs. 3,17,37,908/- by holding that all the units of the assessee company were distinct and separate industrial undertaking eligible for deduction u/s 80IB of the Act 1961.".

2. "Without prejudice to the ground No.1, the learned CIT(A) erred in law and facts in deleting the disallowance u/s 80IB of Rs. 3,17,908/-without appreciating the fact that the Anupam Industries Daman Unit was acquired by the assessee thereby not fulfilling the condition that it should be a new undertaking and should not be formed by gransfer of old plant and machinery".

3. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r 8D of the IT Act of Rs. 9,24,991. Without appreciating the fact that the assessee has made investment in shares which does not for part of the total income under the Act, and thereby Section 14A r.w.r 8D would be applicable."

4. "The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground which may be necessary".

2. Appeal bearing ITA No. 6774/Mum/2019 for AY 2012-13

1. "The Id. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance u/s 80IB of Rs. 3,02,37,908/- by holding that all the units of the assessee company were distinct and separate industrial undertaking eligible for deduction u/s 80IB of the Act 1961.".

2. "Without prejudice to the ground No.1, the learned CIT(A) erred in law and facts in deleting the disallowance u/s 80IB of Rs. 3,02,37,908/- without appreciating the fact that the AID Unit, KS3 and Unit VI were acquired by the assessee thereby not fulfilling the condition that it should be a new undertaking and should not be formed by transfer of old plant and machinery". "The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground which may be necessary".

3. Appeal bearing ITA No. 2653/Mum/2019 for AY 2013-14

1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in deleting the disallowance u/s. 80IB of Rs. 1,55,75,9417- by holding that all the units of the assessee company were distinct and separate industrial undertakings eligible for deduction u/s.80IB of the Act, 1961.

2. Without prejudice to the ground No.1, the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in deleting the disallowance u/s. 80IB of Rs. 1,55,75,9417-without appreciating the fact that the AID Unit was acquired by the assessee thereby not fulfilled the condition that it should be a new undertaking and it should not be formed by transfer of old plant and machinery.

3. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground which may be necessary.

Ground No. 1 & 2 of ITA No. 6200/Mum/2019 for AY 2011-12 ITA No. 6774/Mum/2019 for AY 2012-13 and ITA No. 2653/Mum/2019 for AY 2013-14.

3. Assessee company is into the business of manufacturing of plastics household articles and furniture items. Assessee company claimed deduction u/s 80IB to the tune of Rs. 3,17,37,908/-, 3,02,25,809/- and 1,55,75,941 @ 30% of the profits of Dadar manufacturing unit for Assessment Year 2011- 12, 2012-13 and 2-13-14 respectively. On failure of the assessee to justify the claim of the deduction u/s 80IB, its claim was rejected by the AO.

4. On appeal by the assessee, Ld. CIT(A) allowed the deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 80IB qua Unit-VI and KS- 3 in Assessment Year 2011-12 by returning the following findings:-

I have gone through the