IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE: SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 715/Ahd/2025 A/w.

CROSS OBJECTION No. 88/Ahd/2025 (िनधा१रण वष१ / Assessment Year : 2010-11)

DCIT बनाम/ Sintex Industries Ltd.

Circle -4(1)(1), Vs. 7^th Floor, Abhijit-1 Building, Ahmedabad Mithakhali Six Roads, Ellisbridge, Navrangpura H.O., Ahmedabad City, Ahmedabad, Gujarat - 380009 Sintex Industries Ltd. DCIT Lower Ground Floor, Circle -4(1)(1), Acropolis Mall, Nr. Thaltej Ahmedabad &

Metro Station Entry Gate, Thaltej, S. G. Highway, Ahmedabad, Gujarat -

380054 (cid:830)थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AADCS0858E (Appellant / Cross Objector) .. (Respondent Assessee by : Shri S N Soparkar, Sr. Advocate &

Ukti Shah, A.R.

Revenue by : Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT. DR Date of Hearing 20/01/2026 Date of Pronouncement 25/02/2026 (आदेश)/ORDER PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, AM:

The present appeal filed by the Revenue and Cross objection of the assessee lie against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (hereinafter referred to as “NFAC”), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”) dated 01.01.2025 passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and relates to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2010-11.

2. The brief facts relating to the case are that the case of the assessee was reopened in terms of the provisions of section 147 of the Act finding the assessee to have been allowed excess claim of deduction u/s.80IC of the Act. The assessee was entitled to deduction u/s.80IC of the Act in respect of its Baddi Unit and was noted to have claimed deduction @100% of profits of the said unit after the expiry of five years since the claim was first made by the assessee, on account of substantial expansion undertaken in the said unit. As per the AO, in terms of the provisions of law, the entitlement to claim of 100% deduction of profits was only for 5 years and for the next 5 years the assessee was eligible to claim deduction of profits @30%, irrespective of the fact whether it had carried out substantial expansion. The AO accordingly held the assessee to have claimed excess deduction of profits of its Baddi Unit u/s 80 IC of the Act and, accordingly, passed order u/s 147 of the Act reducing the deduction claimed by the assessee from 100% to 30% of profits, resulting in addition being made to the tune of Rs.59,57,39,492/- to the income of the assessee.

3. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) challenging the validity of the assessment framed u/s.147 of the Act as also the disallowance made of deduction u/s.80IC of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the legal ground raised by the assessee. On merits, however, he found that the issue stood settled in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Aarham Softronics [2019] 102 taxmann.com 343 (SC), noting the Hon’ble Apex Court to have categorically held that on substantial expansion the entitlement to claim of deduction u/s 80-IC of the Act was 100% of the profit even after the expiry of initial 5 years of claim of deduction. Noting so, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition made to the income of the assessee of alleged excess deduction claimed u/s.80IC of the Act amounting to Rs.59,53,16,925/-.

4. Aggrieved by the same, the Revenue has come up in appeal before us challenging the order of the Ld.CIT(A) deleting disallowance made by the AO of alleged excess deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 80-IC of the Act, raising the following grounds:

“(a) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing the assessee's claim of

100% deduction under Section 80IC despite the fact that a second substantial expansion does not entitle the unit to a fresh period of 100% deduction as per the provisions of the Act and judicial precedents including CIT v. Classic Binding Industries (supra).

(b) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in applying the d