9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 614X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase of Harit Synthetic Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. (1985 (10) TMI 69 - BOMBAY High Court) and Bajaj Tempo Ltd. (1992 (4) TMI 4 - SUPREME Court), we are of the opinion that the present appeal deserves to be allowed. Therefore, we hold that the Tribunal was not right in holding that that the assessee had not fulfilled the condition of 10 or more workers stated in Section 80IA(2)(v) of the Income Tax Act. - Decided in favour of assessee. - TAX APPEAL NO. 1852 of 2006 With TAX APPEAL NO. 1261 of 2006 - - - Dated:- 24-12-2014 - MR. KS JHAVERI AND MR. K.J.THAKER, JJ. FOR THE APPELLANT : MR SUDHIR M MEHTA, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT : MR MANISH J SHAH, ADVOCATE JUDGEMENT Per: K S Jhaveri: 1. Both these appeals arise from the com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal. The Tribunal vide impugned order dated 12.05.2006 dismissed both the appeals. Hence, Tax Appeal No.1852 of 2006 is filed at the instance of revenue and Tax Appeal No.1261 of 2006 is filed at the instance of the assessee. 5. While admitting Tax appeal No.1852 of 2006, the Court had formulated the following substantial question of law:- Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law was the Appellate Tribunal right in holding that the business activity of the assessee was manufacturing within the meaning of Section 80IA(2)(iii) of the I.T.Act ? 6. While admitting Tax appeal No.1261 of 2006, the Court had formulated the following substantial question of law:- Whether on the facts and in the circ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enue in Tax Appeal No.1850 of 2006. In paragraph Nos. 5, 6 and 7, the Court has observed as under:- 5. We have heard learned counsel for both the sides. After appreciating the records of the case, the Tribunal concluded that the business activity carried out by the assessee was a manufacturing activity , by placing reliance upon the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of commissioner of Income-Tax, Gujarat v. Ajay Printery P. Ltd. [1965] 58 ITR 811 (Guj.). It is an established law that 'manufacture' implies some activity, which converts the inputs into something different in name, character and use. What is required to be taken into consideration while ascertaining whether the activity constitutes ' man ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s answered in the affirmative in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. All the three appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. 10. Since the issue raised in Tax Appeal No.1852 of 2006 is already concluded by this Court, no elaborate reasons are required to be assigned by us for disposing this appeal. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the Tax Appeal No.1852 of 2006 deserves to be dismissed and the same are accordingly dismissed. The question of law raised in this appeal is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Accordingly, we hold that the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the business activity of the assessee was manufacturing within the meaning of Section 80IA(2)(iii) o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n for promoting economic growth has to be interpreted liberally, the restriction on it too has to be construed so as to advance the objective of the provision and not to frustrate it. 14. We are of the opinion that the assessee had complied substantial compliance with the provisions of Section 80IA(2)(v) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, considering the aforesaid facts of the case and the principle laid down in the case of Harit Synthetic Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and Bajaj Tempo Ltd. (supra), we are of the opinion that the present appeal deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. The question raised in this appeal is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Therefore, we hold that the Tribunal was not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
