TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 731X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty on the articles manufactured by it. For all the above stated reasons, it is held the appellant is entitled to the deduction u/s 80IC in respect of its manufacturing activities - ITA No: 397/Del/2010, ITA No: 2210/Del/2012 - - - Dated:- 14-6-2013 - SHRI I.C. SUDHIR, JM AND SHRI J.SUDHAKAR REDDY, A.M. For the Appellant : Sh.D.K.Mishra, D.R. For the Respondent : Shri G.N.Gupta, Adv. O R D E R PER J.SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Both these appeals are filed by the Revenue against the order of the ld.CIT(A)-XXIII, New Delhi dated 27.11.2009 pertaining to the AYs 2006-07 and order dt. 30.01.2012 for AY 2008-09. As the issues arising in both the appeals are common, for the sake of convenience they are heard together and are disposed of by way of this common order. 2. Facts in brief:- The assessee is a Partnership Firm and it filed its return of income on 31.10.2006 declaring a total income of ₹ 24,17,034/-. The AO at para 5.3 to 5.3.5 has discussed the issue. The same is repeated in para 8 of the Ld.CIT(A) s order, for the sake of brevity we do not extract the same. The issue is whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... achines Welding Different components manufactured are welded together to form assemblies like laces columns, trusses etc. Sand blasting It is a process where the sand is thrown through high speed compressed air in order to remove the carbon scaling on the surface of the components and assemblies. Painting The components are painted with anti rust primer with the help of air compressor. Dispatch to client factory site after inspection Erection at site Some of the components have to be placed on the bases to show the accuracy vis a vis perpendicularity and height. 3. The A.O. had relied on the judgement of the Hon ble High Court in the case of CIT vs. N.C.Budharaja Co. 204 ITR 402 (SC) and the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Builders Association of India vs. CIT 209 ITR 877 (S.C.). The Ld.CIT(A) on the other hand held that these decisions are not applicable to the facts of the case. He opined that the decision of AP High Court in the case of Beehive Engineering Co. an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... el structures after fabricating and manufacturing the same and was not constructing a building. He referred to the definition of manufacture in S.2(29)BA of the Act. He relied on the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and supported the same. He relied on the following case laws. i. CIT vs. Beehive Engineering Co.and Allied Industries P.Ltd., 221 ITR 561(AP) ii. CIT vs. Elemech Industrial Constructions, 229 ITR 503 (A.P.) iii. CIT vs. Northern Aromatics Ltd., 326 ITR 27 (P H) iv. CIT vs. Alcam Engineering P.Ltd., 336 ITR 294 (Mad) 7. In reply the Ld.D.R. relied on some survey findings. He distinguished the case laws relied upon by the assessee. 8. After hearing rival contentions, we are of the considered opinion that the order of the First Appellate Authority has to be upheld for the reason that, the facts of the case clearly demonstrate that the assessee has manufactured an article or a thing. The ld.CIT(A) in the order dt. 30.1.2012 for the AY 2008-09 has discussed the issue at length. At para 6 and 7 of his order he held as follows:- (6) I have also called for and examined the purchase order placed on the appellant by M/s. Dharmpal Premchand Ltd. dated 07.07.2006 for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the various evidences filed, I am unable to uphold the finding of the Assessing Officer that no manufacturing activity has been carried out by the appellant. In my opinion, the appellant has furnished adequate evidence of fabrication and assembly of the steel structure for the steel project of M/s. Dharampal Premchand Ltd. at Agartala. The evidences relied on by the Assessing Officer, namely the few numbers of regular employees, and the deserted appearance of the factory shed, have been satisfactorily explained by the appellant. There can be no reasonable doubt that the appellant manufactured trusses, columns, gantries, etc. in its factory and transported these articles to the project site of M/s. Dharmapal Premchand where these articles were erected by fastening bolts on the civil work already completed by M/s. Dharampal Premchand. The appellant has carried out customised fabrication of the steel structure as per drawings provided by the contractee. The appellant has been granted registration/approval from various regulatory and Government authorities and has paid excise duty on the articles manufactured by it. For all the above stated reasons, it is held the appellant is entitled ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
