TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (12) TMI 381
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al was right in holding that assessee was entitled for deduction of various expenses even though the Assessing Officer has proved in the assessment order that no manufacturing activity has been carried out, in the factory situated at Daman, during the year under consideration?" Tax Appeal No. 136 of 2010 "[A] Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that assessee is engaged in manufacturing article or thing and is entitled to deduction u/s. 80IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961? [B] Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that assessee was engaged in carrying on the activity of manufactu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2)(iii) of the Act?" Tax Appeal No. 138 of 2010 "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that assessee was entitled for deduction of various expenses even though the Assessing Officer has proved in the assessment order that no manufacturing activity has been carried out, in the factory situated at Daman, during the year under consideration?" Tax Appeal No. 139 of 2010 "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that assessee was entitled for deduction of various expenses even though the Assessing Officer has proved in the assessment order that no manufacturing activity has b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... activity. He, accordingly, disallowed the claim in the entirety insofar as Section 80-IB is concerned. With respect to the claim of expenditure, the Assessing Officer held that assessee does not carry out any activity at Daman Unit but the assessee's unit is placed at Pune. The assessee had engaged itself only in trading of laminated plastic rolls from Pune and not from Daman without any expenditure being incurred at Daman. He, therefore, disallowed the claim for expenditure also. 2.2 The assessee approached the Commissioner. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the activity carried out by the assessee does not amount to manufacturing. Insofar as the assessee's claim for expenditure is concerned, CIT(A) was of the opinion that su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and similar kinds of activities as carried on by the assessee. The case of the assessee before the revenue authorities was that at Daman Unit, the assessee carried on activity of slitting of plastic rolls and treating such slitted laminated plastic rolls. CIT(A) found that some what similar activity was found to be not manufacturing by the Madras High Court in case of India Cine Agencies' case. 5. We find that the Tribunal reversed this finding of CIT(A) primarily on the ground that the decision of Madras High Court was reversed by the Apex Court in case of India Cine Agencies (supra.). 6. We do not find that the Tribunal committed any error particularly when it was the case of the assessee that its case was similar to ....