2012 (12) TMI 92 - AT - Income Tax

Deduction u/s 80I - disregarding the fact that the report of chartered engineer upon which the Ld. CIT(A) relied does not state categorically that none of the machineries were transferred to new unit - alleged that almost whole work was got done from out side on job work basis and assessee simply assembled the machinery and is therefore not eligible for deduction u/s 801 - Hold that - Deduction u/s 80I cannot be denied if an assessee get the machinery manufactured or fabricated from outsiders and thereafter assembling the machine itself - claim u/s 80I to the assesses Co. is eligible heaving reference to the manufacturing activity carried out by the assessee during the relevant years, for which supporting purchase of raw materials and manufacturing have been adduced before me which are reflected in the relevant P & L accounts - final product have been manufactured by the assessee Co. Similar factual position is verified with other assessment years - AO is accordingly directed to allow the claim u/s 80I

Summary

Issues Involved
1. Eligibility for deduction under Section 80I of the Income Tax Act.
2. Transfer of old machinery and its impact on deduction eligibility.
3. Nature of manufacturing activities and job work basis.
4. Compliance with ITAT's directions for further inquiry.
5. Classification of certain incomes as not derived from industrial undertakings.

Detailed Analysis

Issue 1: Eligibility for Deduction under Section 80I
The primary issue revolves around the eligibility of the assessee for a deduction under Section 80I of the Income Tax Act. The Revenue contended that the assessee did not satisfy the conditions laid down in Section 80I(2)(i)(ii), particularly pointing out that the manufacturing activities were not conducted by the assessee itself but were largely outsourced on a job work basis. The CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee, which was contested by the Revenue.

Issue 2: Transfer of Old Machinery
The Revenue argued that the old machinery transferred from Mumbai to Ahmedabad (Vatva) disqualified the assessee from claiming the deduction under Section 80I, as it suggested merely a shifting of the existing unit rather than the establishment of a new unit. The CIT(A) found that the machinery transferred from Mumbai was disposed of in the accounting year 1986-87, and new machinery was fabricated at Vatva, thus supporting the assessee's claim.

Issue 3: Nature of Manufacturing Activities
The Revenue's contention was that the assessee's activities did not constitute manufacturing since the major part of the work was done on a job work basis, and the assessee merely assembled the machinery. The CIT(A) disagreed, citing case laws that supported the view that assembling activities could qualify for Section 80I deduction if the final product was manufactured by the assessee.

Issue 4: Compliance with ITAT's Directions
The ITAT had earlier remanded the case back to the CIT(A) with specific directions to verify technical reports, bills, and other documents. The CIT(A) complied with these directions, obtaining a technical report and verifying the relevant documents. The CIT(A) concluded that the assessee had indeed carried out manufacturing activities, thereby qualifying for the deduction under Section 80I.

Issue 5: Classification of Certain Incomes
The CIT(A) identified certain incomes such as miscellaneous income, interest earned, profit on sale of assets, packing charges, sales tax refund, and excise refund, which were not derived from the industrial undertaking. These incomes were excluded from the eligible deduction under Section 80I, in line with the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Sterling Foods vs. CIT.

Conclusion
The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no need to interfere with the order. The appeals filed by the Revenue for Assessment Years 1986-87, 1990-91, 1991-92, 1993-94, 1987-88, and 1992-93 were dismissed, affirming the assessee's entitlement to the deduction under Section 80I, subject to the exclusion of certain non-eligible incomes.