9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Taxability of amount received as CCS due to retrospective amendment in the law. 2. Claim of deductions under sections 80HH and 80-I. Analysis: 1. The appeal addressed two specific issues, with the counsel deciding not to press certain grounds related to the taxability of CCS amount due to retrospective law amendment. These grounds were consequently rejected. 2. The primary issue remaining was the claim for deductions under sections 80HH and 80-I by the assessee, a firm engaged in exporting brass art-wares and handicrafts. The Assessing Officer initially rejected the deductions, stating the firm was not a small-scale industrial unit or a manufacturer. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) initially upheld the claim but later rejected it due to non-compliance with conditions in sections 80HH(2)(iv) and 80-I(2)(iv), specifically related to the employment of a minimum number of workers as per the sections. 3. The contention revolved around the requirement of employing a certain number of workers as per the sections, which the assessee did not fulfill as it did not operate with power and employed fewer than 20 workers. The argument that artisans engaged on a contract basis should be considered workers was dismissed, emphasizing the need for direct employment as per the sections. 4. The appeal before the Tribunal reiterated the argument that all types of workers, direct or indirect, should be counted for deductions under sections 80HH and 80-I. Legal interpretations of terms like "employ" and "employee" were presented, along with references to relevant case laws supporting the inclusion of casual workers for such deductions. 5. The Departmental Representative supported the Commissioner's decision, citing a relevant case law. After considering the submissions, the Tribunal concluded that the firm did not meet the requirements of sections 80HH and 80-I, emphasizing the need for direct employment of workers as stipulated by the sections. 6. Referring to a Supreme Court decision, the Tribunal highlighted the distinction between a contract for service and a contract of service, emphasizing the need for personal labor in an employment contract. The Tribunal found that the outside workers could not be considered casual employees of the assessee due to the absence of direct control over them. 7. The Tribunal distinguished the relied-upon cases, stating they were not applicable to the present situation. It upheld the Commissioner's decision to reject the claims, emphasizing the importance of direct employment of the stipulated number of workers for claiming deductions under sections 80HH and 80-I. 8. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the Commissioner's decision to reject the claims for deductions under sections 80HH and 80-I due to the lack of direct employment of the required number of workers by the assessee.
|
