9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1480X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hort) challenges the order dated 14.10.2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai ("the Tribunal" for short). This appeal relates to the Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Revenue has urged the following question for our consideration:- "Whether in law and on the facts of the instant case, was the Tribunal correct in holding that the conversion of gold into mountings, outsourced by the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ved, the respondent carried the issue in appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ["CIT(A)" for short] but without success. 5. On further appeal, the Tribunal by the impugned order noted that Government of India had granted permission to the respondent assessee to manufacture handmade jewellery. Thus, absence of plant and manufacturing could not lead to the conclusion that no manufactur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt as jewellery. Thus, allowed the appeal of the respondent by holding it was entitled to the benefit under Section 10B of the Act. 6. Mr. Pinto, the learned counsel appearing in support of the appeal submits that both the Assessing Officer as well as CIT(A) found that there was no machinery available at the respondent's premises. Thus, establishing the fact that no manufacturing activity was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... small amount of labour charges and wages being the basis of the disallowance was also considered by the Tribunal and it was found that the Revenue had not carried out any examination / enquiry to ascertain what would be the fair market value of the labour charges and wages in this sort of activity. Thus, there is no reason to disbeleive the respondent. 8. The above view taken by the Tribunal is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
