TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (5) TMI 802
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d of appeal as admitted by the learned A.R. for the assessee is ground No.2 which reads as under: "2. That the perusal of the assessment records of the appellant would reveal that the appellant had made for the deduction as the provision of the income tax Act as contained u/s 80P(2)(a) (iii) of the Income tax while filing the returns of income. The deduction so claimed was however denied to the appellant in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Karnal Cooperative sugar Mills Ltd Vs CIT 253ITR page 659. However the appellant was in appeal against various orders and matter was also pending in the courts in respect of assessment year 1995-1996." 3. The issue arising in the present appe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d in the business of manufacture and sale of sugar out of the sugarcane grown by its member, can be denied deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(iii) of the I.T. Act, 1961 on the ground that proceedings involves use of power? 5. The Assessing Officer noted that neither the said claim of deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(iii) of the Act was made in the return of income, nor at any time subsequently except by way of filing the dated 15.12.2004. The assessee was show caused to explain as to why the said claim be entertained at that stage. The Assessing Officer rejected the claim of the assessee as it had failed to file the requisite return within the stipulated period and the claim being made by filing the said letter was not to be entertained. The Asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... u/s 139 (5) and not through revised return, held that The assessee has a remedy by way of filing a revised return of income. In view of the aforesaid facts, and the case laws, the AO was fully justified in disavowing the claim made by the appellant for deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(iii) through a letter. In view thereof, the CIT (Appeals) upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. 7. The assessee is in appeal against the said order of the CIT (Appeals). The learned A.R. for the assessee pointed out that the of the assessee society were farmers and the society was marketing agricultural produce grown by its members by way of running sugar mills and hence entitled to the exemption under section 80P(2)(a)(iii) of the Act. The learned A.R. for th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and the Tribunal and was upheld by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court as reported in Karnal Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT [253 ITR 659 (P&H)]. In view of the above said, the assessee while filing the return of income for the captioned assessment year declared its income of Rs. 47,50,160/and did not claim any deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(iii) of the Act. However, during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee by way of letter dated 15.12.2004 pointed out that the issue decided by the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, against the assessee, has been referred to a Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court and consequently it was entitled to the claim of deduction un....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... down that any claim made otherwise than in the return of income or the revised return of income cannot be entertained by the Assessing Officer. However, the plea of the assessee is that it had made the said claim even before the CIT (Appeals) as the issue had been settled in favour of the assessee by the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in assessee's own case reported in 315 ITR 351 (P&H) and the same should have been allowed by the CIT (Appeals). 11. We find that the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT Vs. Ramco International (supra) allowed the claim of deduction under section 80IB of the Act as the form No.10CCB in respect of the said claim was filed during the assessment proceedings and it was h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., it had to be tested on the principle laid down in the case of CIT Vs. Oracle Software India Ltd. [320 ITR 546 (SC) wherein it had been held as under: "The terms 'manufacture' implies a change, but every change is not a manufacture, despite the fact that every change in an article is the result of a treatment of labour and manipulation. However, this test of manufacture needs to be seen in the context of the above process. If an operation/process renders a commodity or article fit for use for which it is otherwise not fit, the operation/process falls within the meaning of the word 'manufacture'." 13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in assessee's own case thus held that The above test has to be applied and adjudicated on case to c....