9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (12) TMI 381X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ship Breaking Corporation vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad (2008 -TMI - 31137 - SUPREME COURT), held that the activity would amount to manufacturing. - The case of the assessee before the revenue authorities was that at Daman Unit, the assessee carried on activity of slitting of plastic rolls and treating such slitted laminated plastic rolls - Decided in favor of the assessee - Tax Appeal No. 135 and 140 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 28-12-2011 - Akil Kureshi, Sonia Gokani, JJ. Mauna M. Bhatt for the Appellant S.N.L. Agarwala, Tushar P. hemani and Vaibhavi K. Parikh for the Respondent JUDGEMENT Akil Kureshi, J 1. The revenue has preferred this appeal against common judgement of the Tribunal dated 03.03.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and circumstances of the case and in law the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that assessee is engaged in manufacturing article or thing and is entitled to deduction u/s. 80IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961? [B] Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that assessee was engaged in carrying on the activity of manufacturing though it has been categorically held by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order that activity carried on by assessee tantamounts to slitting and not manufacturing or production? [C] Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that assessee is engaged in manufacturing article or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r that activity carried on by assessee tantamounts to slitting and not manufacturing or production? [C] Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that assessee is engaged in manufacturing article or thing and is entitled to deduction u/s. 80IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 though assessee failed to fulfill the condition laid down u/s. 80IB(2)(iii) of the Act?" 2. Appeals arise out of following factual background: 2.1 The respondent-assessee, with respect to its activities at Daman had claimed deduction under Section 80-IB of the Act, 1961 and had also claimed certain expenditure by way of deduction for carrying out such activity. The Assessing Officer was of the opini ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y would amount to manufacturing. 2.5 The Tribunal also simultaneously upheld the CIT(A) with respect to expenditure. Accordingly, the appeals of the revenue were dismissed and appeals of the assessee were allowed. 3. In response to our notice, respondent-assessee had appeared through counsel, Mr. Tushar Hemani. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the revenue as well as for the assessee. From the record it emerges that the CIT(A) had relied heavily on the decision of Madras High Court in case of India Cine Agencies vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [261 ITR 491] to uphold that the activities carried on by the assessee would not amount to manufacturing. In fact, the Commissioner (Appeals) was of the opinion that the case before the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
