TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 846X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Advocate ORDER PER Dr. O.K. NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT This is a bunch of 10 appeals. All the appeals are filed by the Revenue. The common assessment year is 2009-10. The appeals are directed against the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals)-I at Coimbatore dated 7.5.2012 and arise out of the assessments completed under sec.143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. The assessees in all these cases are Co-operative Societies registered under the Industrial Co-operative Societies Act of Tamil Nadu. The assessee-societies are engaged in textile manufacturing. In computing their income for the impugned assessment year, all the assessee-societies have claimed deduction under sec.80P(2)(a)(ii). This claim made by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here in the Income-tax Act, 1961, but the classification of a cottage industry is available under the Industrial Development and Regulation Act. The assesseesociety enjoys the status of a cottage industry under the said Act. The assessee is also getting all other favours and concessions from both Central and State Governments to promote the handloom industry in its status as a cottage industry. The Tribunal further observed that the assessee is mainly producing handloom bed sheets which sold through the outlets of co-optex handloom, an apex marketing society formed by the Government of Tamil Nadu. In that case also, the main reason pointed out by the Assessing Officer to deny the benefit of cottage industry to the assessee was that the size ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nting benefit of exemption under sec.80P(2)(a)(ii). The above view of the Tribunal has been followed in another set of appeals disposed off by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai D Bench for the assessment year 2008-09 through their order dated 12.6.2012 in ITA Nos. 2004, 2005 2006/Mds/2011. 6. Therefore, it is seen that the issue has been decided in favour of the assessee-societies for the earlier assessment years in a consistent manner. In these circumstances, we find that the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) is justified in accepting the claim of deduction made by the assessees in all these cases. Accordingly, the orders of the Commissioner of Incometax( Appeals) are upheld. 7. In result, these appeals filed by the Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
