Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s Balaji Polymers (DIU) Versus ACIT-17 (2) , Mumbai

2015 (9) TMI 709 - ITAT MUMBAI

Deduction u/s 80IA denied - the assessee did not employ ten workers and further that the assessee did not produce any evidence of actually rendering of services by the labourers/workers, more specifically, when no disallowance was made to the expenditure claimed by the assessee - Held that:- We have perused the record and found that for different months from April to March, the number of workers varies from eleven to thirteen, which are based upon the summary shit of muster book evidencing that .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

gency, therefore, we are of the view, that the assessee has substantially complied with the conditions laid down in section 80IA(2)(iv) - Decided in favour of assessee. - IT(SS)A No. 09/Mum/2014 - Dated:- 1-5-2015 - Joginder Singh, JM And R. C. Sharma, AM,JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Ajit Kumar Srivastava CIT-DR For the Respondent : Shri Jitendra Jain ORDER Per Joginder Singh (Judicial Member) The assessee is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 30/09/2014 of the ld. First Appellate Authority, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

cal to the ground raised by submitting that in fact more than ten workers were employed by the assessee for which the ld. counsel invited our attention to the affidavit from the partner of the assessee firm along with summary of payments to casual labour/security staff. Our attention was also invited to the assessment order dated 24/03/2013. Plea was also raised that casual labour are also in the category of the workers for which the ld. counsel relied upon the decision from Hon'ble Bombay H .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the factory itself was closed in the year 1998. It was also explained that the amounts to the workers were paid through the bank. 2.1. For the period 1995-96, the ld. counsel for the assessee fairly agreed that during this period, the assessee firm merely worked for three months and the staff was also short, therefore, in view of this admission, the claim of the assessee for the period 1995-96 is decided against the assessee. 2.2. On the other hand, Shri Ajit Kumar Srivastava, ld. CIT-DR, defend .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rried out u/s 132 of the Act on 20/08/1998 consequent upon notice u/s 158BC of the Act was issued to the assessee on 16/11/1998. The assessee filed the return for the block period claiming deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. The Assessing Officer denied the claimed deduction on the ground that the assessee did not employ more than ten workers and thus did not fulfill the eligibility condition for claiming deduction and made the addition. On appeal, before the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

934/- for financial year 1994-95 (three months) and ₹ 2,26,888/- for financial year 1995-96. The assessee undisputedly made the payments to the contract labour part of which was used for manufacturing process. We further note that there were six casual workers throughout the year with the assessee for which the assessee made the payment. In invoices, issued by M/s SCI International ltd., establishes that the assessee actually made the payments for the entire period to the tune of ₹ 1 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

workers is concerned, we are of the view that in the absence of any definition of the word 'worker' the Court has to take its ordinary meaning which includes permanent, temporary and casual also. There is no reason why the word 'worker' should not include all these three categories. Our view is supported by the decision in CIT Vs. K.G. Yadurappa & Company (1985) 152 ITR 152 (Kar.) In order to qualify for relief, the undertaking must have employee ten or more workers substant .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

c Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. 162 ITR 640 (Bom.) held that average number is to be worked out for substantial compliance of the condition of employment of ten or more workers. In CIT vs Sulant & Sons Rice Mills 272 ITR 181/145 taxman 506 (All.), CIT vs Hanuman Rice Mills 275 ITR 79 (All.) and CIT vs Ajamani Industries (2006) 153 taxman 43 (All.), it was held that workers deployed on all process must be counted. So far as contract labours are concerned, there are divergent views like the Hon'ble Al .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

les or things, therefore, it is immaterial whether workers were employed directly or by hiring from a contractor. Our view is fortified by the decision from Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs Jyoti Plastic Works Pvt. Ltd. (2011) 203 taxman 546 (Bom.) and CIT vs Nanda Meant and Pine Chemicals Ltd. (2012) 25 taxman.com 118. Further, the expression 'workers' is neither defined u/s 2 of the Act nor u/s 80IB(2)(iv) of the Act, therefore, it would be reasonable to hold that the ex .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

jurisdictional High Court itself. It is further noted that while coming to this conclusion, the Hon'ble High Court distinguished the decision in R. & P. Exports vs CIT (2005) 279 ITR 536 (All.) and Venus Auto Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 321 ITR 504 (All.). Totality of facts clearly indicates that the assessee employed more than ten workers at the relevant time. In para 2.14 of the impugned order, it has been mentioned by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is that mere production of bills .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

gister. At the same time, it is also noted that the claimed deduction was denied on the ground that no manufacturing activity was carried out by the assessee. However, the Tribunal vide order dated 16/09/2011 held that the assessee was engaged in manufacturing activity. The issue of employing ten workers was restored to the file of the Assessing Officer, thus, at that stage, it was not possible to prade the workers before the Assessing Officer as the business was already closed down in the year .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version