9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 1103X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by AO amounting to Rs. 46,20,216/-. 3. The assessee business activity is not at all falling under manufacturing activities within the ambit of section 80IB of the I.T. Act. Therefore, the assessee is not entitled for deduction u/s 80IB of the I.T. Act. 2. Since all the grounds are interconnected, therefore, disposed off by this common order. 3. Short facts of the case are as under : 3.1 In the order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263, the A.O. disallowed entire claim of deduction u/s 80IB(4) with the following remarks: "The assessee company has claimed deduction u/s 80IB of Rs. 46,20,216/-. The total turnover of the assessee consists of the following: - SI. No. Particulars Amount 1. Sales 11,05,984/- 2. Machining Charges 1, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the deduction u/s 80IB was allowed "in earlier A.Y. by the department in its case. It is also submitted that the assessee is in the business of manufacture of Turbo machinery parts, Components Viz. Compressor wheels, Compressor blades, Spacers etc. The Raw materials required for the said parts/ components are procured by the company and sometimes it is being supplied by the customers and the end product is commercially different from the materials out of which it is produced. The assessee has also quoted various Court findings which is favourable to it in this connection. The explanation submitted by the assessee has been carefully perused. It is assessee's submission that the assessee is in the business of manufacturing activity. Howe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the above discussions, the deduction claimed u/s 80IB of Rs. 46,20,216/- is fully disallowed and added to the Returned Income." 3.2 Matter carried to CIT(A) and CIT(A) has allowed the claim by observing as under : "7. I have gone through the assessment order and have perused the submission of the appellant. The main issue in question is whether the activities carried on by the assessee is to be regarded as manufacturing or labour charges. In the assessment order, the A.O. has treated the activities of the Appellant Company as being engaged in assembling, processing, Job work, repairing and servicing etc. The main reason, why the A.O. has not treated the activity of the assessee as manufacturing is; that the assessee is supplied the ra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the claim in the year under consideration. We find that the AO has confirmed that the activities undertaken by the Assessee qualifies to be regarded as manufacture and allowed the claim of the Assessee for A.Y. 2004-05. The principles of consistency would apply and hence it is not open for the Department to question the validity of the allowability of the claim of deduction u/s 80IB(4) for the impugned assessment year by holding that the activities undertaken by the Assessee cannot be regarded as manufacture more particularly when there is no change in the facts and circumstances of the case of the Assessee. This view is supported by the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gopal Purohit, 336 ITR 287. Therefore, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
