TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 1058X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... HINI BUILDERS. [2001 (3) TMI 9 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] upholding tribunal’s conclusion deleting Section 68 addition - hence the addition is deleted - Decided in favor of assessee. Claim for Depreciation on crimping of yarn - manufacturing activity - Held that:- As in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VERSUS EMPTEE POLY-YARN P. LTD. [2008 (2) TMI 313 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] examined this very question and came to the conclusion that the activity of texturizing and twisting of yarn amounts to manufacturing or article or thing distinct from the original - because in impugned process original commodity loses its identify - thus such activity is held to be manufacturing activity - Decided in favor of assessee. - R/TAX APPEAL No. 547 of 2018 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cess of treating yarn and does not come under manufacturing activity therefore the assessee is not entitled for additional depreciation ? Two main issues are raised by the Department. First is with respect to addition of ₹ 1 Crore made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 { the Act for short}. The second issue pertains to a question whether the activity of crimping of yarn can be said to be the manufacturing activity. With respect to the additions made under Section 68 of the Act, the Tribunal while confirming the deletion made by the CIT [A] observed as under :- 5. We have heard both the parties. There is no dispute so far as identity of the creditor party M/s. Raj Capital Finance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. Upon perusal of the documents on record and in particular the above noted portion of the Tribunal s order, it clearly emerges that the entire issue is factual in nature. No question of law arises. With respect to the second issue, we notice that the Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Emptee Poly Yarn [P] Limited, reported in 305 ITR 309 [Bombay] in the context of assessee s claim for deduction under Section 80IA of the Act, examined this very question and came to the conclusion that the activity of texturizing and twisting of yarn amounts to manufacturing or article or thing distinct from the original. Resultantly, such activity is held to be manufacturing activity. The Court held as under : 13 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
