TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 616X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rd to demonstrate that the facts in the case in the year under consideration and that of A.Y. 2009-10 2010-11 are different and distinguishable and further no material has been placed by the Revenue to demonstrate that the decision rendered by the Tribunal in assessee s own case for A.Y. 2009-10 2010-11 has been stayed/ set aside/ overruled by higher judicial forum. In such a situation, we find no reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A). Thus ground of the Revenue is dismissed. - ITA No. 3943/Del/2018 - - - Dated:- 11-3-2022 - SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessee by : Shri Amit Goel, C.A. Revenue by : Shri Brij Mohan Singh, Sr. D.R. ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVED ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 2(29BA) of the I. T. Act, 1961. Since, the assessee has done only job related works in raw materials which were shown as purchase through book entries could not falls under the ambit of manufacturing activity as per section 2(29BA) of the I. T. Act, 1961. The decision implies that on the basis of process flow chart would automatically be deemed to be that once an object or substance is subjected to job related work had the transformation of the article in order to bring new article into existence and this activity would amount to manufacturing and be eligible for deduction u/s 80IC of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. That the order of the Ld. CIT(A), Haldwani is against the spirit of legislature and the order of the AO is liable to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entical facts. The submissions of the assessee was not found acceptable to AO. AO concluded that the assessee was not engaged in the manufacturing activity and was merely engaged in fine tuning a product and not manufacturing of any new product. He also noted that against the order passed by CIT(A) in assessee s favour in earlier years, Revenue has preferred second appeal before the Tribunal. He therefore held that the assessee was not eligible for the claim of deduction u/s 80IC of the Act and accordingly denied the claim of deduction amounting to ₹ 3,21,71,012/-. 6. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). CIT(A) noted that in A.Y. 2012-13, his predecessor has allowed the appeal of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ason that according to him assessee was not engaged in the business of manufacturing of any new product but was engaged in job work. We find that CIT(A) by following the order of his predecessor for A.Y. 2012-13 held the assessee to be engaged in the business of manufacturing and held that assessee to be eligible for deduction u/s 80IC of the Act. We further find that identical issue about the claim for deduction u/s 80IC of the Act arose in assessee s own case in A.Y. 2009-10 2010-11 wherein the Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal vide order dated 16.08.2017 held the assessee to be eligible for deduction u/s 80IC of the Act. Before us, Revenue has not placed any material on record to demonstrate that the facts in the case in the year under con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
