Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2021 (12) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (12) TMI 943 - HC - Income TaxDeduction u/s 80IA - claim denied as assessee was not engaged in the process of manufacture, but only assembling the parts procured from others - ITAT allowed the claim - HELD THAT:- As decided in ELGI ULTRA INDUSTRIES LIMITED [2012 (8) TMI 809 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] assessee himself is not personally engaged in the manufacture, would not disentitle the assessee from claiming the relief as one engaged in manufacturing activity, for, so long as the assessee exercises control in the work entrusted to job workers, the assessee would be entitled to the relief under Section 80IA of the Act. Being a deduction provision, taking note of the present day outsourcing of various activities, we need to give a meaningful expression to "assessee engaged in the manufacturing process", to hold that so long as the effective involvement of the assessee is there in the form of quality control or supply of material and dyes for the manufacture of parts of the grinders or machinery, even in the case of assembling done through job work, the assessee would be entitled to have the benefit under Section 80IA of the Act. In the circumstances, guided by the decision of RAMALINGAM [1994 (11) TMI 14 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] we hereby rejecting the Revenue's appeal, thereby, confirming the order of the Tribunal. Addition of bad debts written off - conditions laid down under section 36(1)(vii) read with section 36(2) were not satisfied by the assessee -claim for deduction was disallowed by the assessing officer on the ground that the debts have been taken over from the sister concerns voluntarily only as a measure of support to it and knowing fully well that the same was irrecoverable and hence, the same was liable to be denied - ITAT allowed the claim - HELD THAT:- Tribunal taking note of the position that the Memorandum and Articles of Association permitted the assessee to carry on the business of money lending and the transactions in question have been held to be in the realm of business activity. When there is no dispute raised on the aforesaid factual position, this court finds no reason to differ with the view taken by the Tribunal. In view of the same, the second substantial question of law is also answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
|