High Court Of Punjab & Haryana
CIT vs. Impel Forge & Allied Industries Ltd.
Section 80-IB
Asst. Year 2001-02
Adarsh Kumar Goel & L.N. Mittal, JJ.
IT Appeal No. 543 of 2008
5th December, 2008
Counsel appeared : Rajesh Sethi, for the Appellant
ORDER
Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. :
The Revenue has preferred this appeal under s. 260A of the IT Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) against the order of the Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench ‘B’, Chandigarh passed in ITA No. 316/Chd/2005, dt. 18th Oct., 2007, for the asst. yr. 2001-02, proposing to raise following substantial question of law :
“Whether on the facts and in law, the Hon’ble Tribunal was justified in holding that deduction under s. 80-IB is permissible on income derived from processing activities as processing activities do not constitute manufacture of a product ?
” The assessee is engaged in manufacturing and trading of tractor and auto parts and also doing job work of similar nature. It claimed deduction under s. 80-IB of the Act and income from job work, which was partly allowed by the AO. On appeal, the CIT(A) upheld the plea of the assessee, which has been affirmed by the Tribunal. We have heard learned counsel for the Revenue. Only contention raised on behalf of the Revenue is that the assessee may be entitled to deduction under s. 80-IB of the Act in respect of income derived from its own manufacturing but the said deduction was not admissible for the job work done for others. Reference to s. 80-IB of the Act shows that only requirement for its applicability is deriving of income from business referred to in sub-ss. (3) to (11), (11A) and (11B) of the Act, apart from other conditions with which we are not concerned. It is not the case of the Revenue that the business of the assessee does not fall under sub-ss. (3) to (11), (11A) or (11B) of the Act. The assessee is at liberty to do manufacture for itself or for others, which makes no difference for purposes of s. 80-IB of the Act. The Tribunal has also relied upon similar view taken by Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Northern Aromatics Ltd. (2005) 196 CTR (Del) 479. Since the view taken by the Tribunal is clearly supported by bare language of the statute, we are unable to hold that any substantial question of law arises. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
[Citation : 326 ITR 27]
