Latest Expert Exchange Queries
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
 
 
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Service Tax | Sales Tax | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Indirect Tax | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing
 
 
 
 
Popular Search: TDS :: VAT Audit :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: due date for vat payment :: VAT RATES :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: form 3cd :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: empanelment :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: cpt :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes
 
 
From the Courts »
  Micro Spacematrix Solution P Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi)
 Micro Spacematrix Solution P Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi)
 CIT vs. Greenfield Hotels & Estates Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court)
 IndiaBulls Financial Services Ltd vs. DCIT (Delhi High Court)
 Maharao Bhim Singh of Kota vs. CIT (Supreme Court)
 Ravneet Takhar Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax Ix And Ors.
 Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax
 Formula One World Championship Limited Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation-3 And Anr.
 Commissioner Of Income Tax International Taxation-3 Delhi Vs. Formula One World Championship Ltd. And Anr.
 Reliance Communications Ltd vs. DDIT (ITAT Mumbai)
  Sushila Devi vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)

DCIT, Cir 4(1), New Delhi. Kailash Colony, Vs Legancy Foods Pvt. Ltd., C-48, Kailash Apartment, New Delhi.
August, 28th 2014
             IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
                   DELHI BENCH "D" NEW DELHI

         BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
                              AND
            SHRI B.C. MEENA : ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

                         ITA No. 3643/Del/2013
                         Asstt. Yr: 2009-10
DCIT, Cir 4(1),                 Vs Legancy Foods Pvt. Ltd.,
New Delhi.                            C-48, Kailash Apartment,
                                      Kailash Colony, New Delhi.
                                      PAN/GIR No. AAACL 9887 F

( Appellant )                         ( Respondent )

             Appellant by :     Shri S.N. Bhatia DR
             Respondent by:     Dr. Rakesh Gupta Adv.

                                ORDER

Per B.C. Meena, A.M:-

      This is department's appeal assailing the CIT(A)-VIII, New Delhi's
order dated 28-3-2013 relating to A.Y. 2009-10. The sole effective ground
raised is as under:

      "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld
      CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 6,58,66,937/- made
      by the A.O. by disallowing the claim of the assessee u/s 80IC"

2.    Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had set up a unit at Baddi
in Himachal Pradesh for packaging of Horlics, Boost for Glaxo Smithkline
Consumer Healthcare Ltd. The assessee filed its return of income claiming
deduction u/s 80IC of Rs. 6,59,69,287/- @ 100% on the profits of the
eligible business alleging that it was engaged in the activity of
                                          2


manufacturing        of Horlics & Boost. The AO disallowed the claim of
deduction u/s 80IC, inter alia, by observing that in from 3 CD of the audit
report the nature of business was shown as "rendering services of job work"
(packaging of Horlics, Boost for M/s Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer
Healthcare Ltd.), which was not the manufacturing activity as defined in sec.
2(29BA) of the I.T. Act. In doing so the AO rejected the explanation of the
assessee that the claim was allowed from the starting of business in 2005-06
and in scrutiny assessments for A.Y. 07-08 & A.Y 08-09.

2.1.      In first appeal before the CIT(A), the assessee had filed a petition
under rule 46A requesting for admission of additional evidences in the form
of flow chart of manufacturing process, ledger account of M/s               Ridge
Construction, copy of certificate of deduction of sales tax, and other
evidences, which were admitted by the CIT(A) vide order dated. 27.02.2013
and called for the remand report from the AO.

2.2.      Before the ld. CIT(A) the assessee, inter alia, submitted that:

   (i)       It had set up its manufacturing unit at Baddi in the state of
             Himachal Pradesh which qualifies for deduction u1s 80IC. The
             assessee is into this very business since A.Y. 2005-06 & had been
             allowed the deduction u1s 801C in respect of its profits derived
             from this very industrial undertaking since then in the year of the
             profits, so much so that this claim was examined in Scrutiny
             Assessment in A.Y. 2007-08 & thereafter the claim was allowed in
             Assessment u/s 143(3). Claim was allowed in A.Y. 2008-09 also.
   (ii)      The assessee is contract manufacturer and has entered into an
             Agreement/MOU with M/s Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer
                                     3


        Healthcare Ltd (OSKCH) since 13.07.2004 according to which
        raw-materials for the manufacturing of Energy Drinks namely
        Horliks & Boost were to be supplied by M/s               GSKCH &
        thereafter the assessee appellant would do processing by using its
        own Plant & Machinery followed by packing of final products.
        The raw-materials supplied by M/s         GSKCH and others, are
        Skimmed milk powder, whey powder, Fine crystalline sugar, Dry
        vitamin premix. Ascorbic Acid which are raw materials for
        Horliks. Raw materials supplied for Boostre Fortified Base, Fine
        crystalline sugar, Cocoa powder, Cocoa flavor DC 499, Cocoa
        flavor DC 497, Vanilla Flavor De 110. These raw materials upon
        processing are converted into Horlicks & Boost. Detailed Note on
        manufacturing process was filed before the Ld. A.O. during the
        course of assessment proceeding together with copy of Product
        Process Flowchart which would show the various stages through
        which various types of the raw-materials pass & are subjected to
        mechanical processing. These evidences are enclosed in the paper
        book also.
(iii)   The assessee was registered with Central Excise         according to
        which also, products manufactured by appellant are treated as
        manufacturing. A Fresh process flow chart is enclosed explaining
        in greater detail the entire manufacturing process and it may be
        appreciated that inputs and outputs are different in all respects viz.
        technically & commercially. Sec.80IC is available where the
        industrial undertaking manufactures/ produces articles or things. It
        means that deduction is available if articles or thing is either
        manufactured or produced & the articles or things may not
                                          4





              necessary be manufactured. It may be seen that the physical
              properties, chemical properties & commercial properties of the
              main raw materials undergo a change after the processing & once
              products are manufactured, items of raw-materials can not be
              restored to their original positions. That means all the above
              properties undergo change to the extent of irreversibility. Final
              product is known technically & commercially by different names
              than those of the raw-materials. In fact CBEC vide its circular No.
              7/90 dated 07.03.1990 has also explained on the basis of the report
              of Chief Chemist that when the above said inputs are mixed, a new
              product different from raw-material emerges & it can not be
              considered as simply re-packing.

2.3.   In support of contentions that it was engaged in manufacturing and
production, the assessee had placed reliance on the ratio of decisions in the
cases of:

       (i)      Arihant Tiles and Marbles (P) Ltd [2010] 320 ITR 79;
       (ii)     DCIT vs. Benjamin Cheri an (2011)10 ITR (Trib)521
                (Chennai);
       (iii)    ITO vs. Natural Frangrances (2010) 27 Taxmann.com
                292(Del); &
       (iv)      Deepkiran Foods P. Ltd. vs. ACIT, AIT-2013-26-IT AT
                (Ahmd.)

2.4.   The ld. CIT(A) allowed the claim of deduction u/s 80IC, by deleting
the addition in question, inter alia, observing as under:

       "I have considered the submissions of the appellant, findings of
       the AO and the facts on record. The remand report of the AO
       and the rejoinder filed by the appellant has also been
       considered. Perusal of the remand report shows that the AO
                               5


after considering the additional evidences furnished by the
appellant has again held that the appellant was not entitled for
deduction u/s 80IC, since the appellant could not prove that it
was engaged in manufacturing activity.

The main issue involved is regarding the fact that whether the
activity carried on by the appellant was a manufacturing
activity. In order to avail deduction under section 801C, an
assessee has to fulfill the conditions contemplated in the
section, therefore, it is imperative to take note of the relevant
statutory provisions. The relevant part of section 80-lC, reads
as under:

      "Special provisions in respect of certain undertakings or
      enterprises in certain special category States.

      80IC(1) Where the gross total income of an assessee
      includes any profits and gains derived by an undertaking
      or an enterprise from any business referred to in sub-
      section (2), there shall, in accordance with and subject to
      the provisions of this section, be allowed, in computing
      the total income of the assessee, a deduction from such
      profits and gains, as specified in sub-section (3).
      (2) This section applies to any undertaking or enterprise,

      (a) which has begun or begins to manufacture or produce
      any article or thing, not being any article or thing
      specified in the Thirteenth Schedule, or which
      manufactures or produces any article or thing, not being
      any article or thing specified in the Thirteenth Schedule
      and undertakes substantial expansion during the period
      beginning (ii) on the 7th day of January, 2003 and
      ending before the 1st day of April, 2012, in any Export
      Processing     Zone or        Integrated    Infrastructure
      Development Centre or Industrial Growth Centre or
      Industrial Estate or Industrial Park or Software
      Technology Park or Industrial Area or Theme Park, as
      notified by the Board in accordance with the scheme
      framed and notified by the Central Government in this
      regard, in the State of Himachal Pradesh or the State of
                                6


      Uttaranchal; or

      (b) which has begun or begins to manufacture or produce
      any article or thing, specified in the Fourteenth Schedule
      or commences any operation specified in that Schedule,
      or which manufactures or produces 'any article or thing,
      specified in the Fourteenth Schedule or commences any
      operation specified in. that Schedule and undertakes
      substantial expansion during the period beginning

      (ii) on the 7th day of January, 2003 and ending before
      the 1st day of April, 2012, in the State of Himachal
      Pradesh or the State of Uttaranchal; or

      (3) The deduction referred to in sub-section (1) shall be

      (i) in the case of any undertaking or enterprise referred
      to in sub clauses (i) and (iii) of clause (a)or sub-clauses
      (i) and (iii) of clause (b), of sub-section (2), one hundred
      per cent of such profits and gains for ten assessment
      years commencing with the initial assessment year;

      (ii) in the case of any undertaking or enterprise referred
      to in sub clause (ii) of clause (a) or sub-clause (ii) of
      clause (b), of subsection (2), one hundred per cent of such
      profits and gains for five assessment years commencing
      with the initial assessment year and thereafter, twenty-
      five percent (or thirty per cent where the assessee is a
      company) of the profits and gains".

Perusal of the section would reveal that subsection (1) of
section 80IC provides a deduction in respect of profit and
gains derived by an undertaking or enterprises from any
business referred to in sub-section (2), while computing the
total income of an assessee. Sub- section (2) has further sub-
sections and in the case of the appellant, the clause applicable is
80IC (2) (b) which provides that assessee has begun or begins
to manufacture any article or thing, which are not specified in
Thirteenth schedule. It means assessee should not manufacture
any article. or thing which is specified in thirteenth schedule.
Apart from this, the activity of manufacture should commence
                               7


between the period 7th day of Jan 2003 and ending on Ist April
2012. It should be at the place notified by the Board in
accordance with the scheme.

The fact which is essential for examining the case of an
assessee about the admissibility of deduction under sec. 80-IC
is whether it manufactures or produces any article or things.
According to the Assessing Officer, expression "manufacture"
has been defined in section 2(29)(B)(a) which read as under:

      "(29BA) "manufacture ". with its grammatical variations,
      means a change in a non-living physical object or article
      or thing,-

      (a) resulting in transformation of the object or article or
      thing into a new and distinct object or article or thing
      having a different name, character and use; or

      (b) bringing into existence of a new and distinct object or
      article or thing with a different chemical composition or
      integral structure ".

The stand of the AO is that the activity carried out by the
assessee was not manufacturing and there was no chemical
change in the composition of the raw material. The appellant
has placed in the written submissions a flow chart exhibiting
the activities carried out by it before producing altogether
distinct saleable commodity which has its own identification in
the commercial world.

In the case of India Cine Agency, Hon'ble Supreme Court has
considered the judgment rendered in the case of Sesa Goa
(supra) and all other decisions on the point which contemplate
the meaning of expression "manufacture" as well as
"production". The relevant discussion made by the Hon'ble
Court reads as under:

       "2. As noted above, the core issue is whether activity
       undertaken was manufacture or production.
                        8


3. In Black's Law Dictionary (5th Edition), the word
"manufacture' has been defined as, "the process or
operation of making goods or cipy material produced
by hand, by machinery or by other agency; by the hand,
by machinery; or by art. The production of articles for
use from raw or prepared materials by giving such
materials new forms, qualities, properties or
combinations,

whether by hand labour or machine". Thus by process
of manufacture something is produced and brought into
existence which is different from that, out of which it is
made in the sense that the thing produced is by itself a
commercial commodity capable of being sold or
supplied. The material from which the thing or product
is manufactured may necessarily lose its identity or may
become transformed into the basic or essential
properties. (See Dy. CST (Law), Board of Revenue
(Faxes) Coco Fibres [1992J Supp. l SCC 290).

4. Manufacture implies a change but every change is
not manufacture, yet every change of an article is the
result of treatment, labour and manipulation. Naturally,
manufacture is the end result of one or more processes
through which the original commodities are made to
pass. The nature and extent of processing may vary
from one class to another. There may be several stages
of processing, a different kind of processing at each
stage. With each process suffered, the original
commodity experiences a change. Whenever a
commodity undergoes a change as a result of some
operation performed on it or in regard to it, such
operation would amount to processing of the
commodity. But it is only when the change or a series of
changes takes the commodity to the point where
commercially it can no longer be regarded as the
original commodity but instead is recognized as a new
and distinct article that a manufacture can be said to
take place. Process in manufacture or in relation to
manufacture implies not only the production but also
                               9


        various stages through which the raw material is
        subjected to change by different operations. it is the
        cumulative effect of the various processes to which the
        raw material is subjected to that the manufactured
        product emerges. Therefore, each step towards such
        production would be a process in relation to the
        manufacture. Where any particular process is so
        integrally connected with the ultimate production of
        goods that but for that process processing of goods
        would be impossible or commercially inexpedient, that
        process is one in relation to the manufacture. (See
        Collector of Central Excise v. Rajasthan State Chemical
        Works [1991) 4 SCC 473) = (2002-TIOL-66-SC-CX).

        7. To put it differently, the test to determine whether a
        particular activity amounts to "manufacture' or not is:
        Does a new and different good emerge having
        distinctive name, use and character. The moment there
        is transformation into a new commodity commercially
        known as a distinct and separate commodity having its
        character, use and name, whether be it the result of one
        process or several processes- 'manufacture' takes place
        and liability to duty is attracted.

        Etymologically the word 'manufacture' properly
        construed would doubtless cover the transformation. It
        is the transformation of a matter into something else
        and that something else is a question of degree, whether
        that something else is a different commercial
        commodity having its distinct character, use and name
        and commercially known as such from that point of
        view, is a question depending upon the facts and
        circumstances of the case. (See Empire Industries Ltd.
        v. Union of India [J985)33 SCC 314) = (2002-TIOL-27-
        SC-CX)."

In the instant case it is observed that the appellant had entered
into an agreement with M/s Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer
Healthcare Limited (GSKCH) for production of "Boost &
Horlics". Raw material was to be supplied by M/s GSKCH. The
                              10


appellant was to provide for necessary infrastructure,
machinery, labour, & suitable storage space for all the material
and finished products. The raw materials supplied to the
appellant were in the form of skimmed milk powder, fine
crystalline sugar, dry vitamin premix, ascorbic acid & other
raw materials for production of Horlics. For production of
Boost the raw materials supplied were Fortified Base, Fine
crystalline sugar, Cocoa powder, Cocoa flavor DC 499, Cocoa
flavor 497, Vanilla Flavor De 110. After undergoing various
manufacturing processes the raw materials are converted into
the final products. The manufacturing process of Horlics
involves two stages which have been described as under by the
appellant:

      "Manufacturing process for sweetened milk powder.

      Materials are weighed as per manufacturing formula &
      transferred from drums into blender through pneumatic
      conveying system. Sequence of addition is-half qty of
      Skimmed milk powder, whey powder, total qty of Fine
      Crystalline sugar, ascorbic acid, Dey vitamin premix,
      finally remaining SMP. After conveying above batch is
      mixer, mixing is done for 15 Mins. Composite sample is
      collected for analyzing vitamin-C. After completion of
      mixing, powder is discharged in plastic drums having
      polyliner. Afterwards it is transferred to warehouse for
      captive consumption. The mixed powder is named as
      Part-B or Sweetened milk powder which is further issued
      to production for blending with PartJ4. Part-B itself is
      not a saleable product.

      ii.   Manufacturing process of Horlics:

      Materials are weighed as per manufacturing formula &
      transferred from drums in to blender through pneumatic
      conveying system. Sequence of addition is-186kg Malt based
      intermediate (Low fat), 186 kg Malt based intermediate (high
      fat) followed by 199 kg sweetened milk powder and then after
      186 kg Malt based intermediate (low fat), 186 kg Malt based
      intermediate (High fat). Post addition of all the material mixing
                              11


     is done for 5 minutes. The finished product is discharged &
     flows with gravity through screw conveyor into vibro sieve.
     Sieved product is passed through metal separation system. After
     wards packing is done in Jars & Pouches by Jar Filling
     machine From Auto pack and Pouches by Bosch machine.

As regards the manufacture of Boost the two stages involved
are as under:

     i.     Manufacture of flavored fortified base

      Material are weighed as per manufacturing go formula
     & transferred from drums into blender through
     pneumatic conveying system. Sequence of addition is 575
     kg (5 drums) fortified base for Boost, pre-blend of fine
     crystalline sugar, cocoa powder & coca flavor DC-499,
     COCA FLAVOR dc-497, vanilla flavor DC-l1 0 and 460
     kg (4 durms) of fortified base for Boost. After conveying
     one batch is mixer, mixing to be done for 1 minutes at 5.5
     RPM Composite sample is collected for analyzing BFC.
     Afterwards it is transferred to warehouse for captive
     consumption. The mixed powder is named as Part-B or
     flavored fortified base for Boost. Part-B itself is not a
     saleable product

      ii.   Manufacturing process of Boost:

     Material are weighed as per manufacturing formula &
     transferred from drums into blender through pneumatic
     conveying system. Sequence of addition is- 460 kg Boost,
     237 kg flavored fortified base for boost followed by 4.09
     kg glucose granules (yellow) & 4.09 kg glucose granules
     (orange) and then after 460 kg Boost Base. Post addition
     of all the material, mixing is done for 3 minutes. The
     finished product is discharged & flows with gravity
     through screwconveyor onto vibro sieve (3x3mesh).
     Sieved product is passed through metal separation
     system.
     After wards packing is done in Jars & Poches by jar
                               12


      filling machine from auto pack and pouches by Bosch
      machine. "





Perusal of the above facts show that the raw materials acquired
by the appellant after undergoing extensive processes which
involve the use of machinery are converted into Horlics &
Boost. There is a distinct change of one object to another for the
purpose of making it marketable. A new product has been
brought into existence which is distinctly different from the raw
materials which are used and is a commercially different
commodity. A different commodity having a distinct name and
character emerges from the raw material after undergoing
various processes in the form of mixing, blending, sieving etc.
at different temperatures. The final product is entirely different
commercially from the raw material used. The chemical
composition has also undergone change. Labour and machinery
have also been utilized for production of the final product. In
view of the above it is clear that the appellant is engaged in
manufacturing and production. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of CIT vs Oracle Software India Ltd. has held as under:

      "10. In our view, if one examines the above process in the
      light of the details given hereinabove, commercial
      duplication cannot be compared to home duplication
      Complex technical nuances are required to be kept in
      mind while deciding issues of the present nature. The
      term "manufacture" implies a change, but every change
      is not a manufacture, despite the fact that every change
      in an article is the result of a treatment of labour and
      manipulation. However, this test of manufacture needs to
      be seen in the context of the above process. If an
      operation/process renders a commodity or article fit for
      use for which it is otherwise not fit, the operation/process
      falls within the meaning of the word "manufacture".
      Applying the above test to the facts of the present case,
      we are of the view that, in the present case, we are of the
      view that, in the present case, the assessee has under
      taken an operation which renders a blank CD fit for use
      for which it was otherwise not fit. The blank CD is an
                               13


      input. By the duplicating process undertaken by the
      assessee, the recordable media which is unit for any
      specific use gets converted into the programs which is
      embedded in the mastiff media and, thus, the blank CD
      gets converted into recorded CD by the afore stated
      intricate process. The duplicating process changes the
      basic character of a blank CD, dedicating it to a specific
      use. Without such processing, blank CDs would be unfit
      for their intended purpose. Therefore, processing of
      blank CDs would be unfit for their intended purposes.
      Therefore, processing of blank CDs dedicating them to a
      specific use, constitutes a manufacture in terms of section
      80IA(12) read with section 33B of the IT Act"

Similarly, in the case of CIT v. Emptee Poly-Yarn P. Ltd.
(supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has followed the decision
in the case of CIT vs. Oracle Software India Ltd (supra), and
held in paragraph 8 as under:

      "Applying the above test to the facts of this case, it is
      clear that POY simpliciter is not fit for being used in the
      manufacture of a fabric. It becomes usable only after it
      undergoes the operation/process which is called thermo
      mechanical process which converts POY into texturised
      yarn, which, in turn, is used for the manufacture of
      fabric. One more point needs to be mentioned. Under the
      Income Tax act, as amended in 2009, the text given by
      this court in Oracle Software's case (2010) (1) Scale
      425' has been recognized when the definition of the word
      "manufacture" is made explicit by the Finance (No.2)
      Act, 2009, which states that "manufacture" shall, inter
      alia, mean a change in bringing into existence of a new
      and distinct object or articles or thing with a different
      chemical composition or integral structure. Applying this
      definition to the facts of the present case, it may be
      mentioned that the above thermo mechanical process
      also beings about a structural change in the yarn itself
      which is one of the important tests to be seen while
      judging whether the process is manufacture or not. The
      structure, the character, the use and the name of the
                                     14


            product are indicia to be taken into account while
            deciding the quest ion whether the process is a
            manufacture or not".

        Perusal of facts on record also show that the appellant was
       registered with the excise department wherein it has been
       stated by the excise department that the appellant was
       engaged in manufacturing. Perusal of the audit report of the
       excise department shows that it has clearly been mentioned
       that the appellant was engaged in the manufacture of Malt
       Based Foods and was falling within chapter 19 of CETA
       attracting central excise duty. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
       the case of Arihant Tiles & Marbles Pvt .Ltd. 320 ITR 79
       (SC) has observed that when the activity undertaken by the
       assessee involves levy of excise duty then to say that the said
       activity does not amount to manufacture or production U/S
       80lA will have disastrous consequences. It is also pertinent to
       note that the appellant had been allowed deduction U/S 80lC
       from A.Y. 2005-06 to A.Y. 2008-09 in respect of the profits
       by the AO, therefore in view of consistency also following the
       decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
       Radhaswami Satsang the deduction claimed by the appellant
       is allowable. In view of the findings above that the appellant
       is engaged in the process of manufacturing and production
       and in view of the judicial decisions on the subject discussed
       above and also in view of the fact that the deduction has been
       allowed to the appellant in the earlier years it is held that the
       appellant is entitled to the claim of deduction under the
       provisions of section 80lC. The disallowance made by the AO
       is deleted."

3.    We have considered rival submissions of both the sides and have gone
through the entire material available on record. The assessing officer
disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 80IC by observing that assessee was
not engaged in manufacturing activity. Therefore, the main issue involved is
whether the activity carried on by the appellant was a manufacturing
activity. To examine whether the assessee had to fulfill the conditions
                                     15


contemplated u/s 80IC, it is imperative to take note of the relevant statutory
provisions. Sub-section (1) of section 80IC provides a deduction in respect
of profit and gains derived by an undertaking or enterprises from any
business referred to in sub-section (2), while computing the total income of
an assessee. Sub- section (2) has further sub-sections and in the case of the
assessee, the clause applicable is 80IC (2) (b) which provides that assessee
has begun or begins to manufacture any article or thing, which are not
specified in Thirteenth schedule. It means assessee should not manufacture
any article. or thing which is specified in thirteenth schedule. Apart from
this, the activity of manufacture should commence between the period 7th
day of Jan 2003 and ending on Ist April 2012. It should be at the place
notified by the Board in accordance with the scheme.



3.1.   Admittedly the assessee was registered with the excise department. In
the audit report of the excise department the assessee has been shown to be
engaged in the manufacture of Malt Based Foods, falling within chapter 19
of CETA attracting central excise duty.


3.2.   In our considered opinion the ld. CIT(A) in coming to the conclusion
that assessee was engaged in the activity of manufacturing and production,
eligible for deduction u/s 80IC, has drawn support from various judicial
pronouncements and elaborately taken into consideration the facts of the
case. It is also not disputed that assessee has already been allowed deduction
u/s 80IC in earlier years from A.Y. 2005-06 to A.Y. 2008-09. No change in
facts for the assessment year in question has been brought on record. In this
view of the matter we see no reason to interfere in the order of CIT(A) on
                                      16


the issue in question. Accordingly, order of CIT(A) is upheld.

4.    In the result, revenue's appeal is dismissed.

Order pronounced in open court on 22-08-2014.



Sd/-                                                    Sd/-
( GEORGE GEORGE K. )                             ( B.C. MEENA )
JUDICIAL MEMBER                              ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dated: 22-08-2014.
*MP*
Copy to:
   (1) Assessee
   (2) AO.
   (3) CIT(A)
   (4) CIT
   (5) CIT(DR)

 
 
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2016 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Software Reengineering Software Re-engineering Software Reverse Engineering Software Reverse Development Software Change Modulation Software Conversion Software Re-creation Software Re-development

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions