TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (7) TMI 261
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Income Tax Act(hereinafter referred to as "the Act") challenges order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 22.1.2010 for the assessment year 2003-2004. The assessee who is in the business of assembling of computer and servers and parts providing services etc. and having business unit at Silvasa and Ahmedabad, filed return of income declaring its total income at Rs. 4,25,882/. 3. This was assessed by the Assessing Officer determining the income of the assessee respondent at Rs. 93,17,200/after disallowing claims of deduction under Section 80IB of the Act. Various additions were made by the Assessing Officer while computing the income of the assessee. 4. The assessee respondent challenged this order before the CIT(Appeals) which pa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... under Section 80IB by the Revenue. Moreover, the issue according to the learned counsel is squarely covered by decision of Apex Court in case of Incometax officer, Udaipur v. Arihant Tiles & Marbles(P.) Ltd. reported in (2010) 186 Taxman 439(SC). It has been urged that the activity undertaken by the assessee respondent is construed as activity of 'manufacture' or 'production' in terms of Section 80IA and therefore, the Tribunal has correctly upheld the version of the assessee setting aside the order of the Assessing Officer. 9. Having regard to the submissions made by both the sides and having considered the orders of the adjudicating authorities below, this Tax Appeal requires no meritorious consideration for the reasons ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e assessee is manufacturing. The ld. CIT(A) further opined in the light of various judicial precedents that the average number of employees should not be less than ten, and it would suffice if, on an average, there are at least ten workers employed in the undertaking, even though the number of workers employed during some part of the previous year is less than ten. The Revenue have not placed before us any material controverting the aforesaid findings of of the ld. CIT(A). 3.31 In a recent decision in the case of Arihant Tiles and Marbles P Ltd.(supra), Hon'ble Apex Court while adjudicating an issue as to whether conversion of marble blocks by sawing into slabs and tiles and polishing amounts to 'manufacture or production' with....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on was unimpeachable. It was held by this Court that the word "production" is wider in ambit and it has a wider connotation than the word "manufacture". It was held that while every manufacture can constitute production, every production did not amount to manufacture." 11. On the basis of these observations, the Tribunal has held that while assembling various components by carrying on quality control through testing equipments, the assessee manufactured computers and servers which is a new and distinct product other than the components of which it is made. Both on the grounds of principle of consistency as also requirement to follow the ratio laid down by the Apex court, the Tribunal concurred with the findings of CIT(Appeals) to hold that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the assessee was 'simply assembling?" 2. Central issue is whether respondent assessee was carrying on manufacturing activity so as to enable to take benefit under Section 80IB of the Income Tax Act. CIT(Appeals) as well as tribunal both concurrently held in favour of assessee after examining evidence on record. Tribunal in particular, observed that claim of assessee is based on documentary evidence, fully supported by licenses and registrations obtained under different statutes such as Central Excise Act, Sales Tax Act, Directorate of Industries, etc. Copies of such documents were furnished on record and available with the Assessing Officer. Tribunal further observed that a perusal of the process described by the assessee giving de....