TMI Blog2013 (3) TMI 818X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... PER J. SUDHAKAR REDDY: This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-II, Kanpur dated 18.5.2012 for assessment year 2005-06. 2. The facts of the case as appearing at para 2 of the order of the ld. CIT(A) are extracted below for reference:- 2. The appellant as proprietor of M/s. Shanky Films is engaged in the business of trading of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 28,000/- 3. The sole issue arises for our consideration in this appeal is whether the first appellate authority was right in allowing deduction under section 80IB of the Act of ₹ 45,70,969. The Assessing Officer made disallowance on the ground that the assessee has purchased jumbo films (big rolls) and got it cut into smaller size film an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d size is not an activity of manufacturing or production of any article or thing. ii) Assessee has not employed 10 or more workers in the manufacturing purposes. iii) Assessee has claimed higher deduction under section 80IB because the assessee has shown excess profit in its Pondicherry Unit by claiming lesser amount of interest in Pondicherry Unit and higher amount f inter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 'ble Bombay High Court that the expression worker is not defined in the Act, means any person employed by the assessee directly or by or through any agency including a contractor. Thus the finding of the Assessing Officer in this regard is also incorrect. 7. Coming to the observation that the assessee has shown excess profits, the first appellate authority has rightly pointed out t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
