9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 729X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mployees in spite of being asked to do so by the Assessing Officer. - In fact, it appears even the packaging material was supplied to contract manufacturer by the Appellants-Company for finished products at Silvassa. Appellants were not carrying out manufacturing activity of electronic computer products within the meaning of Section 80 IB of the Act - Deduction u/s 80IB not allowed - Decided against the assessee. - Income Tax Appeal No. 1 of 2008 - - - Dated:- 10-8-2018 - M.S. SANKLECHA SANDEEP K. SHINDE, JJ. Ms. Sneha Phene with Ms. Priyanka Pol and Mr. Pratik Divkar I/by Little Co. for Appellants. Mr. Abhay Ahuja with Ms. Sangeeta Yadav for Respondents. JUDGMENT: [Per Sandeep K. Shinde, J.] This Appeal under S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... supervision and direct control, the Appellants have relied upon various clauses of the agreement dated 26.8.2003 entered into with M/s. Kobian ECS India Pvt. Ltd. 5. The Appellants' claim for deduction under Section 80 IB of the Act was rejected throughout having found that the manufacturing activity undertaken by M/s. Kobian ECS India Pvt. Ltd. for and on behalf of the Appellants was not under its direct supervision and control. 6. The Assessing Officer upon appreciating the evidence, recorded the finding which are as under: 1 The salary register of the appellant shows that during the entire year till December, 2003 there was only one lady accountant on the roles. For the remaining period of the previous year five more emplo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (ii) Evidence of any director or employee going regularly to Silvassa for supervision. The CIT (A) in its order has recorded finding that the the Appellants had not filed any evidence called for as above and as such, the CIT (A) dismissed the appeal by order dated 18.1.2007 and upheld the order of Assessing Officer. 8. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the Appellants filed an appeal before the Tribunal being ITA No. 2179/M/07. The Tribunal in terms recorded the following findings of facts: (I) The assessee has no immovable asset like factory premises. (ii) List of the assets as given in depreciation schedule shows that no asset was available with the assessee which could be used for manufacturing activities. ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... after considering the entire evidence on record and the facts of the case, the Tribunal concluded that claim of the assessee that, the manufacturing at Silvassa in the factory premises of M/s. Kobian ECS India Pvt. Ltd. was being carried out under its direct supervision and control, was not tenable. 11 The learned counsel appearing for the Appellants would contend that authorities below have failed to appreciate the evidence in the right perspective and misconstrued the recitals of the Contract/Agreement entered into with M/s. Kobian ECS India Pvt. Ltd. She would further contend that for claiming deduction under Section 80 IB of the Act, it is not precondition that the Assessee must own factory premises or machinery; but only requirement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t that upon taking overall view of the matter, the Appellants have established the fact that the manufacturing activity of the computers by M/s. Kobian ECS India Pvt. Ltd. was under direct control and supervision of the Appellants and, therefore, claim ought to have been allowed. 11. Mr. Abhay Ahuja the learned counsel appearing for the Revenue on other hand, would submit that the authorities below have recorded findings of fact and no interference is called for in these proceedings. He would submit that the appeal does not give rise to question of law. He would, therefore, urge that this Court may not interfere with the finding of the fact recorded by the authorities below and as such, appeal may be dismissed. 12. We have perused the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
