9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (1) TMI 114 - HC - Income TaxNature of income - activities from business income - process of fabrication - Held that - Tribunal has observed that process of fabrication, manufacturing and fixing steel liners and steel radial gates falls under manufacturing and income earned on there activities is business income. We are of the opinion that the view taken by both the authorities is just and proper. No substantial question is required to be considered and, we confirm the view taken by the Tribunal.
Issues:
Challenge to Tribunal's decision on deduction u/s 80IE Validity of Tribunal's finding as perverse and contrary to law Analysis: The department appealed the Tribunal's decision confirming the CIT (Appeals) order regarding the deduction under section 80IE of the Income Tax Act. The department raised substantial questions of law, questioning the Tribunal's justification for allowing deductions for technical services receipts, foreign currency fluctuation gain, and excess provision written back. The appellant argued that the assessee had categorized a specific amount as income from other sources, not business profit, and thus, the Tribunal erred in confirming the CIT (Appeals) order. The CIT (Appeals) considered the manufacturing activities related to steel liners and steel radial gates as income from the industrial unit eligible for deduction under section 80IE. The Tribunal agreed, stating that the process fell under manufacturing, making the income earned from these activities business income. Both authorities found the deductions valid, and the High Court upheld their decision, dismissing the appeal as lacking merit. The High Court concluded that no substantial question arose regarding the deduction under section 80IE, as the view taken by the Tribunal and CIT (Appeals) was deemed appropriate. The Court also noted that the issue of foreign currency fluctuation gain did not require further examination due to a Supreme Court decision, and the third issue was a question of fact already decided in favor of the assessee. Consequently, the Court affirmed the decision of the lower authorities and dismissed the appeal for lacking merit.
|
