9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (2) TMI 81 - AT - Income TaxDeduction u/s 10B of the Act nature of business Job work OR Manufacturing process cutting and polishing of granite - Held that - The decision given by the tribunal in the earlier assessment year of the same assessee is followed - The claim of exemption under section 10B has been decided in favour of the appellant for the Assessment Years 2006-07 & 2007-08 Further relying upon Income Tax Officer Udaipur Versus M/s Arihant Tiles & Marbles (P) Ltd 2009 (12) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT - the appellant is entitled to the claim of exemption under section 10B thus The Assessing Officer is directed to allow the claim under section 10B of the Act decided against Revenue.
Issues:
- Disallowance of claim of exemption under section 10B of the Income Tax Act for the Assessment Years 2008-09 and 2009-10. - Whether cutting and polishing of granite constitutes manufacturing activity for the purpose of claiming deduction under section 10B. - Applicability of various judicial pronouncements and circulars in determining the nature of the activity. - Consistency of decisions by the Tribunal and the CIT(A) for earlier years. Analysis: The appeals were filed against the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) for the Assessment Years 2008-09 and 2009-10 concerning the disallowance of the claim of exemption under section 10B of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer contended that the assessee, engaged in cutting and polishing of granite, did not qualify for the deduction under section 10B as it was not considered a manufacturing activity. The Assessing Officer relied on various judicial decisions, including those by the Madras High Court, Supreme Court, and Rajasthan High Court, to support the disallowance. The Assessing Officer also highlighted the non-applicability of certain circulars issued by the CBDT to the case at hand. The Ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal, citing the decisions of the Tribunal for the earlier years and emphasizing the concept of manufacture or production as elaborated in judicial pronouncements. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the appellant's claim of exemption under section 10B for both years based on the precedent set by the Tribunal for the earlier years. The Tribunal, in its order, acknowledged the submissions made by the Ld. CIT(A) and the decisions of the Tribunal for the preceding years. The Tribunal noted that the issue of claim of exemption under section 10B had been decided in favor of the appellant by the predecessor of the Ld. CIT(A) for the Assessment Years 2006-07 and 2007-08. The Tribunal emphasized the detailed findings recorded by the CIT(A) after considering relevant case laws and recent judicial pronouncements regarding the concept of manufacture or production. The Tribunal upheld the orders of the CIT(A) for the earlier years and directed the Assessing Officer to allow the claim of exemption under section 10B. The Tribunal dismissed the departmental appeals, maintaining consistency with the decisions of the CIT(A) and the Tribunal for the preceding years. In conclusion, the Tribunal affirmed the appellant's entitlement to the claim of exemption under section 10B for the Assessment Years 2008-09 and 2009-10 based on the consistent decisions of the CIT(A) and the Tribunal for the earlier years. The Tribunal's decision was supported by the detailed analysis of the nature of the activity in question and the application of relevant judicial pronouncements to determine the eligibility for the deduction under section 10B of the Income Tax Act.
|
