9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 627X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Jasani, for the Respondent ORDER P. C. Both these appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") challenge the common order dated 27 August 2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ("Tribunal") for Assessment Years 2007-08 and 2009-10. 2. In both the appeals the Revenue has urged the following common question of law for our consideration in respect of the two Assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eing of the view that the items claimed to be a result of manufacture were only a process of assembling. Therefore, the benefit of Section 80IC of the Act was denied by the Assessing Officer. 5. Being aggrieved, the Respondent filed an appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)). By an order dated 25 August 2010, the CIT(A) allowed the Respondent Assessee's appeal. The process ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Section 801C of the Act. 6. Being aggrieved, the Revenue carried the issue to the Tribunal. The impugned order of the Tribunal applied the test of manufacture as laid down by this Court in CIT vs. Supreme Graphics Creations P. Ltd. & Anr. 276 ITR page 668 and by the Apex Court in Computer Graphics vs. CIT 308 ITR 98 to hold that the processes applied to the raw materials were manufacturing pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... processes adopted by the Respondent Assessee to obtain front guard, luggage, carrier, rear gear etc. were manufacturing processes. This concurrent finding of fact is not shown to be perverse.
9. In the circumstances, the question as proposed does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained.
10. Therefore, both the appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
