9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 318X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the deduction of Rs.2,93,77,171/- claimed u/s 80IC of the Act. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in stating that it is not the case of splitting up of the business and to hold that the process adopted by the assessee for manufacturing anchor rods is a manufacturing process. 3. The learned A.R. for the assessee at the outset pointed out that both the issues raised in the appeal filed by the Revenue are covered in favour of the assessee by the separate orders of the Tribunal relating to assessment years 2005-06 and 2007-08. 4. The learned D.R. for the Revenue placed reliance on the order of the Assessing Officer. 5. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. The first issue arising in the present appeal is in respect of deducti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the Tribunal vide paras 23 to 26, which reads as under: "23. We, therefore, hold that the activity carried on by the assessee amounts to manufacture and the profits earned by the assessee from carrying on the manufacturing activity are eligible for the deduction u/s 80IC of the Act. The Assessing Officer is directed to allow the deduction u/s 80IC of the Act on the profits of business shown by the assessee. The ground Nos 1 & 2 raised by the assessee are allowed. 24. The assessee has also raised an alternative issue that the assessee is engaged in processing and as such entitled to deduction u/s 80IC of the Act, which is applicable to the units engaged in manufacturing and processing. 25. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Act. The learned A.R. for the assesse pointed out that this issue was also addressed by the Tribunal in ITA No.499/Chd/2009 relating to assessment year 2005-06 vide para 29. Further the Tribunal in the order relating to assessment year 2006-07 in ITA No.1158/Chd/2009 had referred to the estimation of business income by the Assessing Officer and trading balance as income from undisclosed sources and vide paras 11 and 12 held as under: "11. We find that similar issue arose before the Tribunal and vide para 29, it has been held that there is no merits in the exercise carried on by the Assessing Officer and the total profits shown by the assessee are to be included as income from business. The Tribunal in para 29 had observed as under:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rofit rate has been taken as the basis for working out the results under appeal, was engaged in the manufacture of different items though manufactured similar items in earlier years had not been considered. Further, assessee had not used any trade mark of 'USHA' on its products as the anchor rod manufactured by the assessee does not carry any brand and also it was prepared as per specification of customer M/s Suzlon Energy Limited. This allegation of Assessing Officer is without basis. The job work charges paid are backed by bills issued by 3rd parties which are vouched and no discrepancy had been found in them. Comparison of electricity consumption and manufacturing activity by Assessing Officer is not correct as the first bill was raised ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
