9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1194X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arly other production expenses accounted for in Dehradun unit were meager or nominal compared to Chennai unit, though the assessee is declaring huge sales from the Dehardun unit and compared to Chennai unit. Therefore we are of the considered opinion that the assessee is not carrying on any manufacturing activity in Dehradun Unit and the Hon’ble ITAT’s Order in the assessee’s own case for the AYs 2007-08 & 2008-09 is squarely applicable. Since we do not find any difference in the facts of the case we hold that the assessee is not carrying on substantial manufacturing activity in Dehradun unit and not entitled for deduction u/s.80IC and uphold the orders of the Ld.CIT(A). - Decided against assessee. - ITA Nos.2208 And 2209/Mds/2015 - - - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nai unit are taxable as normal income. Therefore, the AO is of the opinion that the assessee, in order to claim the excess benefit u/s.80IC of the Act, invoicing the finished goods manufactured at Chennai from Dehradun Unit or the expenses relating to Dehradun unit were claimed in Chennai unit. The AO suspected that the assessee is making claim of excess deduction u/s.80IC from the Dehradun unit and suppressing the taxable income of the Chennai unit. Accordingly, the AO held that the assessee has transferred the stocks from Chennai unit to Dehradun unit and debited the expenses relating to Dehradun unit in the account of Chennai unit, and claimed the excess deduction u/s.80IC and accordingly rejected the deduction claimed u/s.80IC and made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orders of the Tribunal in the assessee s own case for the earlier AYs are squarely applicable for the AY under appeal. 6.0 We have considered the submissions of both parties and perused the material placed on record. The only issue which arises for determination is whether the assessee is carrying on any substantial manufacturing activity at Chennai or Dehradun unit. During the appeal, the Ld.AR argued that the assessee is carrying on manufacturing activity both at Chennai and Dehradun units and the order of this Tribunal in the earlier years cited supra are not applicable for the Assessment Years under appeal. 7.0 We have gone through the assessment order in Page No.2, the AO has furnished the breakup of the various expenses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 363590 - Out of the above moulds 32646054 6047918 - 249080 57590 - 7.1 For the AY 2011-12 also the AO has furnished the details of various expenses which are reproduced as under: Chennai Unit (Non-80IC Unit) Dehradun Unit (80IC Unit) Sales 323,72,693 16,85,49,406 Labour receipts 53,50,893 - Other receipts 25,71,745 19,209 Expenses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Dehradun unit. On comparison of sales admitted by the assessee in Dehradun Unit and Chennai Unit, the expenses are highly disproportionate to the sales of Dehradun Unit though the sales are at astronomical figure in Dehradun unit and the sales are comparatively low in Chennai Unit, the expenses are very high. This fact is evident from the expenses debited under power consumption repairs and maintenance, administrative overheads and the assets deployed. Out of the total expenses incurred on power ₹ 28,50,372/- the Chennai unit has accounted for a sum of ₹ 28,04,127/- and Dehradun unit is ₹ 46,245/- which clearly shows no manufacturing activity is being done at Dehradun unit. Similarly other production expenses accounted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l quantity of goods at Dehradun. The facts and circumstances show that the assessee is invoicing majority of finished goods from Dehradun whereas that substantial production is carried out at Chennai. The assessee has adopted colourable devise to take undue advantage of benevolent provisions of the Act. We are of the considered opinion that the assessee is not entitled to claim deduction u/s. 80IC of the Act. Since we do not find any difference in the facts of the case we hold that the assessee is not carrying on substantial manufacturing activity in Dehradun unit and not entitled for deduction u/s.80IC and uphold the orders of the Ld.CIT(A). 8.0 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the Op ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
