9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 858X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... S. Jayaraman, Member (A) For the Appellant : R. Anita, JCIT For the Respondents : Arjunraj, CA for S. Sridhar, Advocate ORDER PER DUVVURU RL REDDY , JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 19, Chennai, dated 27.06.2019 relevant to the assessment year 2014-15 passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ Act in short]. In the grounds of appeal, the Revenue has raised the following grounds: 1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is erroneous on facts of the case and in law. 2. The ld. CIT(A) failed to note that the assessee had only shifted a part of the industrial undertaking and not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct. 4. Against the quantum addition, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the impugned addition towards the claim of deduction of ₹ 50,36,72,654/- under section 54G of the Act, against which, the assessee preferred further appeal before the ITAT. Vide order in I.T.A. No. 1619/Chny/2017 dated 26.06.2018, the ITAT has held that the assessee is entitled to claim exemption of capital gains as per the provisions of section 54G of the Act. 5. Against the penalty order under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). After considering the submissions of the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) held that the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is not s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assessing Officer and while accepting the fact that the land in question was used for the purposes of the business of an industrial undertaking, denied the relief to the assessee on the ground that the sale of the store area land in Bangalore is one off transaction not specifically effected in the course of or in consequence of shifting of any industrial undertaking. 8. As against the order passed by the CIT(A) dated 04.5.2017, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. After considering the provisions of Section 54G(1) of the Act, the Tribunal took note of the business activities of the assessee and the meaning assigned to the expression 'industrial undertaking' and held that the interpretation to be given should be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osive, which includes the process of (1) dividing the explosive into its component parts or otherwise breaking up or unmaking the explosive, or making fit for use any damaged explosive; and (2) re-making, altering or repairing the explosive. Thus, the definition of the word 'manufacture' as defined under the Explosives Act, 1884 is an inclusive definition and storing of bulk quantity of explosives and repacking for retail sale would undoubtedly fall within the meaning of the word 'manufacture'. In terms of Rule 71 of the Explosives Rules, 2008, a person holding licence for possession of explosives granted under these Rules shall store the explosives only in the premises specified in the licence. Thus, possession, usage and s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of an industrial undertaking and in fact, going by the definition of the word 'manufacture' under the Explosives Act, the activity done by the assessee namely storage and repacking would also, in our opinion, fall within the definition of the word 'manufacture'. The Tribunal, in paragraph 4.6 of its order, has specifically recorded that the facts are not in dispute. In the light of the above, we find that the interpretation given by the Tribunal to the facts of the case of the assessee is perfectly legal and valid. For the above reasons, the Revenue has not made out any ground to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. 13. Accordingly, the above tax case appeal is dismissed. The substantial question of law is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
