9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 1004X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o so - the AO allowed the deduction u/s 80-IB of the Act for the three AY- 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08 - he had checked and verified that the conditions stipulated in Section 80-IB (2) had been satisfied - There is nothing on record to rebut this presumption - it cannot be contended that the conclusion arrived at by the Settlement Commission that the respondent was entitled to the deduction u/s 80-IB of the Act was arbitrary or perverse – thus, there was no reason for interference in the order of the Settlement Commission – Decided against Revenue. - W. P. (C) 830/2013 & CM No. 1599/2013 - - - Dated:- 22-5-2014 - Badar Durrez Ahmed And Siddharth Mridul,JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. N. P. Sahni and Mr. Nitin Gulati, Advocates For the Respondents : Mr. Parag Tripathi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vivek Kohli, Mr. Kunal Bahri, Ms. Shivambika Sinha and Mr. Shwetank Tripathi, Advocates for R-1 JUDGMENT Badar Durrez Ahmed, J (Oral) 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 21.05.2012 passed by the Income Tax Settlement Commission, Principle Bench, New Delhi on an application for settlement under Section 245C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( the said A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Settlement Commission was contrary to the Income Tax Act, 1961. Mr Tripathi placed reliance on the following four decisions of the Supreme Court:- 1. R.B. Shreeram Durga Prasad v. Settlement Commission Another: (1989) 1 SCC 628; 2. Jyotendrasinhji v. S.I. Tripathi Ors.: 1993 Supp (3) SCC 38; 3. Shriyans Prasad Jain v.Income Tax Officer Ors.: 1993 Supp (4) SCC 727; and 4. Union of India Others v. Ind-Swift Laboratories: (2011) 4 SCC 635 4. He also placed reliance on our recent decision in the case of CIT v. Gopal Gupta: W.P.(C) 1208/2013 decided on 16.05.2014 wherein after examining the aforesaid four Supreme Court decisions it was observed as under:- 13. It is apparent that the power of interference under Article 226 is limited. It is evident that this Court under Article 226 can only interfere with the Settlement Commission if it is found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act and that even if the Court disagrees with an interpretation placed by the Settlement Commission on a document, it cannot substitute its view in place of that of the Settlement Commission unless and until the interpretation given by the Settlement Commission is clearly arbit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce either found during the search of later which may substantiate their claim. It is found that allegations were raised by the Department on the basis of series of presumptions which have been satisfactorily rebutted by the applicant by bringing out facts and figures which show that the applicant was manufacturing chewing tobacco as recorded in the books of account at Baddi unit (H.P.) and entitled for deduction u/s. 80IB of the Act on the amounts claimed by it. During the hearing the applicant has brought out sufficient material to show that it satisfied the conditions laid down in the 80IB of the Act. The applicant has paid Central Excise duty of Rs.310.27 crores on manufacturing done by it at Baddi unit on sales of Rs.573.58 crores during the financial years 2004-05 to 2008-09. The CIT(DR) s contention that the manufacturing was done outside Baddi factory and the Central Excise Duty was paid for manufacturing at Baddi unit cannot be accepted. The applicant has also submitted the returns of Excisable goods and availment of cenvat credit in respect of certain months which contain details of registration number, manufacture clearance and duty payable. While working out the electri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne of Rs.310.17 crores in respect of the manufacturing activity carried out by it at Baddi unit in respect of the sales of Rs.573.58 crores during the financial years 2004-05 to 2008-09. 8. It is in this context that the Settlement Commission rejected the contention of the Revenue that the manufacturing was done outside the Baddi factory though Central Excise duty was paid in respect of the clearances made at the Baddi unit. The Settlement Commission came to this conclusion inasmuch as the department had not been able to produce any incriminating evidence either found during the search or later which could substantiate their claim that the respondent was not entitled to the deduction under Section 80-IB of the said Act. 9. We do not agree with the submission made by Mr Sahni that the Settlement Commission had not examined and overlooked the material placed before the Settlement Commission in support of their contentions that the respondent was not entitled to the deduction under Section 80-IB of the said Act. On examining Section 80-IB of the said Act it is evident from the three conditions stipulated in sub-section (2) thereof that until and unless those three conditions are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
