TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (5) TMI 1004
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....w Delhi on an application for settlement under Section 245C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the said Act"). The only point urged by Mr Sahni appearing on behalf of the petitioner/Commissioner of Income Tax is that the Settlement Commission did not consider the material placed by the Commissioner of Income Tax in his report under Rule 9 and wrongfully allowed the claim of the respondent of deduction under Section 80-IB of the said Act. His submission is that the finding of the Settlement Commission on the elements of Section 80-IB are contrary to the record and are perverse, particularly because the Settlement Commission had not examined the material that was placed before it, which according to Mr Sahni would indicate that the respondent w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-IB of the said Act. 3. Mr Tripathi also submitted that the scope of review under Article 226 of the Constitution, of an order passed by the Income Tax Settlement Commission, was very limited and this Court could only interfere if the conclusion of the Settlement Commission was contrary to the Income Tax Act, 1961. Mr Tripathi placed reliance on the following four decisions of the Supreme Court:- 1. R.B. Shreeram Durga Prasad v. Settlement Commission & Another: (1989) 1 SCC 628; 2. Jyotendrasinhji v. S.I. Tripathi & Ors.: 1993 Supp (3) SCC 38; 3. Shriyans Prasad Jain v.Income Tax Officer & Ors.: 1993 Supp (4) SCC 727; and 4. Union of India & Others v. Ind-Swift Laboratories: (2011) 4 SCC 635 4. He also placed reliance on o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ttlement Commission." 5. It is, therefore, clear that as this Court does not sit in appeal over the decision of the Settlement Commission, we cannot interfere with the findings of fact or law rendered by the Settlement Commission and we certainly cannot substitute our view in place of the Settlement Commission unless and until the interpretation given by the Settlement Commission is clearly arbitrary or perverse. 6. In the present case, we find that the issues raised in the Rule 9 report and the respondent's rejoinder thereto have been set out in detail in paragraph 20 of the impugned order passed by the Settlement Commission. We need not repeat the same for the sake of brevity. The submissions of the parties have also been noted in p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cise duty of Rs.310.27 crores on manufacturing done by it at Baddi unit on sales of Rs.573.58 crores during the financial years 2004-05 to 2008-09. The CIT(DR)"s contention that the manufacturing was done outside Baddi factory and the Central Excise Duty was paid for manufacturing at Baddi unit cannot be accepted. The applicant has also submitted the returns of Excisable goods and availment of cenvat credit in respect of certain months which contain details of registration number, manufacture clearance and duty payable. While working out the electricity consumption, the learned CIT (DR) has relied on incomplete information. He has worked out the production during the financial year 2004-05 on the basis of some electricity bills enclosed by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aw. The submission is accepted and the depreciation is to be allowed accordingly." 7. From the above extracts it can be found that one of the issues that was raised was that no manufacturing activity or very little manufacturing activity was carried out by the respondent at its unit at Baddi, Burhanwala District, Himachal Pradesh and, therefore, the respondents would not be entitled to a deduction under Section 80-IB of the said Act. It is to be noted that the Settlement Commission had observed that the respondents have brought out sufficient material to show that it had satisfied the conditions laid down in Section 80-IB of the said Act. The respondents have paid Central Excise duty to the tune of Rs.310.17 crores in respect of the manu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e; the goods manufactured at the new unit should not be included as an article specified in the Eleventh Schedule and the new unit should employ 10 or more employees when it manufactures with the aid of power or employ 20 or more employees when the manufacturing activities are carried on without the aid of power. Insofar as these conditions are concerned, there is no material to show that they have not been satisfied. On the contrary, there is evidence of the fact that the Assessing Officer, in respect of the assessment years 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08, has allowed the deduction under Section 80-IB of the said Act. The presumption is that an Assessing Officer is aware of the conditions stipulated in sub-section (2) of Section 80-IB of the....