9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of deduction under section 80-IA of the Income-tax Act based on manufacturing activity claim. Analysis: The case revolved around the interpretation of deduction under section 80-IA of the Income-tax Act concerning the manufacturing activity claim made by the assessee. The Assessing Officer initially rejected the assessee's claim for deduction under section 80-IA, citing the results of proceedings by the Central excise authorities, which indicated no manufacturing activities but stock transfers and sales invoices. However, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) found that the Assessing Officer did not conduct a thorough investigation to verify the manufacturing claim, leading to the conclusion that the assessee was entitled to relief under section 80-IA. Subsequently, the Revenue appealed the Commissioner's decision before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, arguing that the assessee's own statements to the Central excise authorities contradicted the manufacturing claim. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments, upheld the Commissioner's decision, emphasizing the lack of concrete evidence to refute the manufacturing activity claim. The Tribunal highlighted the absence of on-site verification by the Assessing Officer or the Central excise authorities at the factory premises in Pondicherry, where the alleged manufacturing activities took place. The High Court, in its judgment, supported the Tribunal's decision, stating that the factual findings indicated the existence of manufacturing activities based on the machinery and raw materials used by the assessee. The Court concluded that since the assessee was engaged in manufacturing telephone cables joining kits, the claim for deduction under section 80-IA was justified. The Court found no error in the Tribunal's order and dismissed the tax cases, stating that no substantial question of law warranted further consideration. The connected matter was also closed without costs.
|
