TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 1101X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her the products manufactured are for its own business or as job work for others. After considering the evidence furnished of fabrication and assembly of trusses, columns, gantries, etc. for the steel plant of M/s Dharmpal Premchand Ltd., it was held that the appellant was entitled to the deduction under section 80le. No new facts have been brought on record in the current year to disprove the appellant's claim. It is held accordingly that the appellant is engaged in the 'manufacture' of articles and is therefore, eligible for the deduction under section 80IC. - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A. No. 227/Del/2013 - - - Dated:- 13-2-2015 - SHRI T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI C. M. GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icating 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 Authori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... labour to whom job charges of ₹ 1,66,17,876/- has been paid, there was no requirement for a large number of regular employees. It is also correct that the provisions of section 80IC do not include any requirement regarding the number of workers to be employed directly. Regarding the finding during survey that the machines appeared to be old and no longer in use, the appellant has explained that the contract for supply and erection of steel structures was completed in July,2009, hence, at the time of survey on 09.03.2010, there was no longer any manufacturing activity underway. 7. The appellant firm is found to be registered with VAT, CST, Service Tax, and Central Excise Authorities. The appellant has produced details of rent paid t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 to the deduction u/s 80IC in respect of its manufacturing activities. The disallowance of ₹ 3,29,76,090/- is accordingly deleted. 9. This decision is in line with the judgement of Hon ble A.P.High Court in the case of CIT vs. Beehive Engineering Co. and Allied Industries Ltd. (supra) where the facts and decisions are as follows: The assessee, a private limited company, purchased M.S.angles, joints, channels etc. and cut them into required sizes, and thereaft ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... activity etc., we are of the opinion that these are not the grounds on which the A.O. denied the claim of the assessee. Such fresh grounds and factual arguments are not borne out of record and hence are dismissed as devoid of merit. 5. In the present case, Ld. CIT(A) has passed the order after following the findings of Ld. CIT(A) in Assessment Year 2008-09, which was upheld by the Tribunal vide order dated 14.06.2013. For the sake of convenience, the findings of Ld. CIT(A) are reproduced below: {5} The above written submissions have been carefully considered. The sole issue in contention is whether the appellant is engaged in manufacture or not. The Assessing 'Officer has entirely relied on the findings in the assessment order u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... products manufactured are for its own business or as job work for others. After considering the evidence furnished of fabrication and assembly of trusses, columns, gantries, etc. for the steel plant of M/s Dharmpal Premchand Ltd., it was held that the appellant was entitled to the deduction under section 80le. No new facts have been brought on record in the current year to disprove the appellant's claim. It is held accordingly that the appellant is engaged in the 'manufacture' of articles and is therefore, eligible for the deduction under section 80IC. 6. We find that the facts under appeal are similar to the facts in Assessment Year 2006-07 and 2008-09 and, therefore, following the above Tribunal order, we do not find any i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
