9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 776X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as never challenged the installation of machinery, but the AO has not allowed the deduction only on the ground that the Assessee is merely doing assembly and not manufacturing. DR could not rebut this fact. It is a fact that in the assessment order the assessee has not challenged the installation of machinery. The Audit Report filed under Rule 18BBB was before the AO and he has not pointed out any discrepancies in the Audit report. CIT(A) has allowed the appeal of the assessee stating that assembly would constitute manufacturing if new product is formed the clientele are different relying on various judicial pronouncement - CIT(A) has given the finding that both these conditions are fulfilled by the assessee. On perusal of the submissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Allowability of Education Cess: 1. The Respondent prays that the liability for education cess on income tax paid for the year ought to be allowed as tax-deductible expenses while computing its taxable income. General: 2. The Respondent craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute and/or modify in any manner whatsoever all or any of the foregoing additional grounds of appeal at or before the hearing of the appeal 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of manufacturing of Aluminum Radiators, Intercoolers, heater cores etc. The Assessing Officer(AO) disallowed Administrative service charges paid to TACO of Rs.7,37,35,000/-. Assessing officer also disallowed assessee s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he parties and for the purpose of carrying on the business of assessee more efficiently. It may be pointed out herein that the assessee had initially entered into an Agreement with TACO in 1997 and the said expenditure had been allowed in the hands of assessee from year to year. However, the assessee renewed the Agreement in 2006 and the expenditure for the first time was not allowed in the hands of assessee in assessment year 2006-07. We find no merit in the orders of authorities below in this regard and accordingly, we modify the order of CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to allow the expenditure in entirety in the hands of assessee. It may be pointed out herein only that the issue vide grounds of appeal No.1 and 2 raised by the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ked the assessee to substantiate its claim u/s 80IC with necessary proofs which is clear from point No. 1 of assessee s submission before the AO dated 26.03.2015 and 31.03.2015 [copies placed at Page 37 and 38 of appellant s paperbook]. The AO has observed that on verification of fixed asset schedule it is seen that there was miniscule addition to the fixed asset during the year under consideration, that was not sufficient for starting manufacturing. Thus, the AO has observed that at Pantnagar Plant the company did not have sufficient infrastructure in the form of plant and machinery during the year under consideration to claim itself as manufacturing undertaking. He observed that the Pantnagar Plant was receiving different parts / goods f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as actually taken up manufacturing activities of assembling / manufacturing of ECS during the year under consideration, the facts of the case needs to be taken into consideration. It is seen from the index of the appellant s paperbook that documents placed at Pages 632 to 672 are relevant documents on this issue. These documents were filed by the appellant before the Ld. CIT(A) as clear from the note placed by the appellant below the index which is reproduced as follows: Certified that the page nos. 1 to 55, 555 to 597 and 630 to 672 were filed before / available with the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)- 5, Pune . This note also clarifies that the said submissions were not filed during the course of assessment proceedings before the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e has filed in its paper book from page number 645 to 652 copies of the documents filed before District Industrial centre , having stamp of District Industrial Centre. In the said document the Assessee had mentioned value of the machinery. The assessee submitted that these papers were filed before the ld.CIT(A). The Revenue has not raised any ground of violation of rule 46A. The Ld.AR argued that the Assessing Officer has never challenged the installation of machinery, but the AO has not allowed the deduction only on the ground that the Assessee is merely doing assembly and not manufacturing. Ld.DR could not rebut this fact. It is a fact that in the assessment order the assessee has not challenged the installation of machinery. The Audit Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
