9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (12) TMI 339X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 95 and 1995-96 is entitled to relief u/s.32A and 801A when the assessee company merely does the work of erection of steel plant which does not involve manufacturing process? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in following the case of ITO vs. K.S.Venkatraman and Co. (243 ITR 377), when in the assessee's own case for the assessment year 1983-84 the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in T.C.No.753 of 1991 dated 26.08.2002 has held that the assessee's activity would not amount to 'manufacture'?" 2. The issues centers around the question whether the respondent assessee is entitled for the benefits unders Section 32 A and 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, hereinafter refer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pportunity of hearing to the respondent assessee to substantiate the claim of Investment Allowance under Section 32A and deduction under Section 80IA of the Act. It is pursuant to the above referred to remand order that the assessing authority determined the issue and held that the respondent assessee is a contracting firm and cannot therefore be held to be an industrial undertaking enganged in the manufacturing activity. However, the C.I.T. Appeals as well as the Tribunal held that as part of its contractual operations, the respondent assessee is also involved in manufacture of articles and things and, therefore, it would qualify for relief under Section 32 A and Section 80 IA of the Income Tax Act. 3. We heard Mr.K. Subramaniam, l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the C.I.T. (Appeals) perused the records and then rendered a factual finding that the respondent assessee, in the course of enforcing its contractual obligations, was involved in very many operations of supply of industrial equipments and, therefore, simply because the respondent assessee was involved in the business of errection of various equipments, the revenue cannot contend that there was no manufacturing operations carried on by the respondent assessee to deny the benefits of Section 32 A and Section 80 IA of the Act. 6. We see some force in the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent / assessee. In fact a perusal of the details culled out by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) while passing the ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er Section 32 A and Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Having regard to such detailed consideration of relevant materials by the lower appellate authorities and the Tribunal which had reached a finding of fact as regards teh manufacturing acitivity of the respondent assessee, there is no scope for interference on such finding of fact arrived at by the Tribunal. The Tribunal also followed the decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in Income Tax Officer vs. K.S.Venkatraman and Co. Reported in 243 I.T.R. 377 while confirming the order made by the C.I.T. (Appeals). Apart from the above said detailed discussion and consideration of material documents by the C.I.T. (Appeals), which was confirmed by the Tribunal, no other mat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
