TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1982 (6) TMI 185
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....TO appears to have accepted that the assessee has complied with the requirements of that section except the conditions mentioned in cl. 1 of sub-s. (2) of that section. According to him, the assessee's activity of manufacture or production was started before 31st Dec., 1970, and therefore they were not entitled to the deduction., He also relied on the facts that the assessee had claimed deduction u/s 80J in respect of the same activity for the asst. yr. 1971-72, which shows that the manufacturing activity had started before 31st Dec.,1970. He rejected the claim of the assessee. 3. Before the Commr. (Appeals), it was submitted that although the assessee was engaged in an industrial activity prior to 31st Dec.,1970, no manufacturing operatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted that the fact shows that there was no manufacturing activity before 31st Dec., 1971. He pointed out that in order to be eligible for deduction u/s 80J, it is not necessary that manufacturing activity should be for the whole year. In any case, he submitted that Tribunal which went into the question of 80J has given any findings adverse to the assessee on this point. With regard to the bill of Rs. 18,895 he submitted that no manufacturing activity is reflected therein. Alternatively, he submitted that at best, assessee's claim for deduction under 80J for 1971-72 will have to be given up. To a query from the Bench, he explained the activities of the assessee that they were manufacturing certain spare parts which are required for repairing ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g part. It would, therefore, be seen that the manufacturing activity taken as a whole had been in existence before the crucial date of 31st Dec., 1970. Thus, the assessee becomes ineligible for the deduction. 6. The Commr. (Appeals) had examined the bill of Rs. 18,895 and had considered the individual items therein to find out whether those items reflected any manufacturing activity. Such an approach is not correct on the admitted position that the activities contained in the bill and the manufacturing activity are one integrated activity. It is not correct to dissect the various steps in the assessee's activities into manufacturing and non-manufacturing activities. We, therefore, reverse the decision of Commr. (Appeals) and restore the or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s a decision of the Karnataka High Court (Mysore as it was then called) in the case of Indian Telephone Industries vs. ITO (1972) 86 ITR 566 (Mys). Two contentions had been raised by the assessee in that case: (i) that the levy of interest was permissible only on an application made by the assessee and (ii) a hearing should be given before levy of interest. Both were rejected by the High Court. 9. The Scheme of the levy of interest and the rules for waiver or reduction of interest appears to be this. The levy of interest u/s 139 is automatic, if there is a delay in filing up the return and the tax payable exceeds the advance income-tax and tax deducted at source. 10. The ITO has no discretion in the matte. But the assessee can ask for eit....