Delhi HC confirms printing and binding activities at eligible undertaking qualify for Section 80IC deduction as factual determination

Delhi HC held that determination of whether printing and binding activities occurred at the eligible undertaking for Section 80IC deduction eligibility is a question of fact. The court confirmed CIT(A) and Tribunal findings favoring the assessee, noting no perversity allegations were raised by revenue under Section 260A. Regarding TDS under Section 194H on trade discounts, the court ruled in favor of the assessee following SC precedent in Ahmedabad Stamp Vendors Association case, covering the Section 40(a)(ia) issue.

---

---

Issues involved:
The judgment involves the issues of condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal, deduction claimed under Section 80IC of the Income Tax Act, and addition made under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act.

Condonation of Delay in Refiling the Appeal:
The appellant sought condonation of delay of 245 days in re-filing the appeal after curing the defects raised by the Registry of the court. The delay was attributed to the collation of relevant records. The court allowed the application and condoned the delay in refiling the appeal.

Deduction Claimed under Section 80IC of the Income Tax Act:
The appeals pertained to Assessment Years 2011-12 and 2012-13, brought by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act to challenge orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The key issue was whether the respondent/assessee was entitled to claim deduction under Section 80IC of the Act due to alleged lack of printing or manufacturing activity in the eligible undertaking at Rudrapur. The Tribunal and CIT(A) ruled in favor of the respondent/assessee, finding that the printing and binding of books did indeed take place at the eligible undertaking. The court upheld these findings, emphasizing that the determination of this fact was within the jurisdiction of the lower authorities and no substantial question of law arose for consideration. Consequently, both appeals were dismissed.

Addition Made under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act:
The Assessing Officer disallowed deductions under Section 80IC for both assessment years, asserting that no printing or binding of books occurred at the eligible undertaking. Additionally, the AO added amounts under Section 40(a)(ia) due to trade discounts offered by the respondent/assessee being treated as commission. However, the CIT(A) and the Tribunal ruled in favor of the respondent/assessee, holding that the deductions were allowable and the trade discounts were genuine. The court found no grounds for challenging these factual findings and dismissed the appeals.

---