9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (4) TMI 223X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s having distinctive name, character and use, the process could be held to be manufacturing - order of the Tribunal cannot be held to be erroneous – Decided in favor of assessee. - 23 of 2011 - - - Dated:- 7-2-2012 - ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, SAHA U. B., JJ. JUDGMENT Adarsh Kumar Goel C. J.- 1. This appeal has been preferred by the Revenue under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against the order dated March 19, 2010, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, in I. T. A. No. 214 (Gau)/2007 for the assessment year 2004-05 claiming the following substantial questions of law : "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified and correct in law in setting aside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T. A. No. 189(Gau) 2008. Reference was also made to the reasons given by the Assessing Officer as follows : "6. The assessee-firm, M/s. I. Tech Electronics, located at EPIP, Aminnann. Guwahati, started assembling of colour TV with effect from October 23, 2003. Being an SSI unit, it obtained DIC registration certificate on August 1, 2003. The assessee claimed 100 per cent. deduction of its profits and gains derived from the industrial unit under section 80-IC of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 2004-05 being the initial assessment year. The assessee was asked, vide this office letter dated August 28, 2006, to justify the claim of deduction. In response, the assessee's authorised representative sub- mitted that M/s. I. Tech Ele ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... firm is engaged in manufacturing activity and entitled to deduction as specified in sub-section (3) of section 80-IC of the Income-tax Act." 3. The Tribunal upheld the plea of the assessee following its earlier order in Rajb Ranjan Pujari and also holding that exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the Commissioner was not called for. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Learned counsel for the Revenue submits that the assessee was merely purchasing different components from SALORA International Limited and after assembling the TV/DVD, the same were sold back to the same party. The same was the position with regard to Kitchen Appliances India Limited from whom the assessee was purchasing different components and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
