9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 363X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 419/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and notice under section 143(2) dated 12.10.2005 was issued to the assessee. The Assessing Officer vide assessment order dated 26.12.2006 completed the assessment and made certain additions/disallowances and demand of Rs. 69,06,040/- was raised by the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved against the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). The appeal was preferred by the assessee primarily on the following issues:- (i) Disallowance of expenditure on software amounting to Rs.4,37,806/- by treating it as capital in nature. (ii) Restricting the claim of deduction under section 80HHC. (iii) Reduction in claim of deduction under section 80IB. (iv) Disallowance of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the case of the assessee is squarely covered by the judgement of the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in Tax Case (Appeal) No.1020 of 2009 titled CIT Vs. MRF Ltd. decided on 27.10.2009. He submitted that in the above mentioned case the Hon'ble Madras High Court has held that both the sections are independent and therefore, deduction can be claimed under both on the gross total income. The Hon'ble High Court while coming to the conclusion has relied on the judgements of various High Courts including the judgement of Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of J.P.Tobacco Products P. Ltd. Vs. CIT reported as 229 ITR 123. 6. As regards issue no.2, the counsel submit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act. 5. We have heard the rival submissions in the light of the material placed before us and precedents relied upon. In regard to the job work production it was explained before us that assessee buys fabrics and gets the garments cut and stitched by other manufacturers called job workers under its own factory, wash, finish press and pack the same in its own factory and then sell the same. The assessee pays tailoring charges to job work manufacturers which are debited to the profit and loss account as such. 6. In the case of CIT Vs. Penwalt India Ltd. (196 ITR 813) (Bom) assessee was getting machinery manufactured by somebody else under its direct supervision and control. All other activities were undertaken by the assessee. Hon'ble H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
