TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (9) TMI 709
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of actually rendering of services by the labourers/workers, more specifically, when no disallowance was made to the expenditure claimed by the assessee. 2. At the time of hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee, Shri Jitendra Jain, advanced his arguments, which are identical to the ground raised by submitting that in fact more than ten workers were employed by the assessee for which the ld. counsel invited our attention to the affidavit from the partner of the assessee firm along with summary of payments to casual labour/security staff. Our attention was also invited to the assessment order dated 24/03/2013. Plea was also raised that casual labour are also in the category of the workers for which the ld. counsel relied upon the decis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lasticizers. A search operation was carried out u/s 132 of the Act on 20/08/1998 consequent upon notice u/s 158BC of the Act was issued to the assessee on 16/11/1998. The assessee filed the return for the block period claiming deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. The Assessing Officer denied the claimed deduction on the ground that the assessee did not employ more than ten workers and thus did not fulfill the eligibility condition for claiming deduction and made the addition. On appeal, before the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), it was found that the assessee did not satisfy the requirement of employment of ten workers, thus, the stand of the ld. Assessing Officer was affirmed, denying the claimed deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. The asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hy the word 'worker' should not include all these three categories. Our view is supported by the decision in CIT Vs. K.G. Yadurappa & Company (1985) 152 ITR 152 (Kar.) In order to qualify for relief, the undertaking must have employee ten or more workers substantially during the period for which relief was claimed. There could be no hard and fast rule by which one could determine whether there had been substantial compliance. It is for the authority or the Court to so decide based upon the facts before them as was held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs Taluja Enterprises (P.) Ltd. 250 ITR 975 (Del.). The Hon'ble Courts in CIT vs Sawyer's Asia Ltd. 122 ITR 259 (Bom.), CIT vs Ormerods (I) (P.) Ltd. 176 ITR 470 (Bom.), ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... hold that the expression/word 'workers' used in section 80IB(2)(iv) of the Act is referable to the persons employed by the assessee directly or through a agency (including contractor) in the manufacturing activity/process carried on by the assessee. What is relevant is the employment of ten or more workers and nor the mode or manner in which the workers were employed by the assessee. Our view find supports from the decision in Jyoti Plastic Works Pvt. Ltd. (2011) 339 ITR 491 (Bom.) from the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court itself. It is further noted that while coming to this conclusion, the Hon'ble High Court distinguished the decision in R. & P. Exports vs CIT (2005) 279 ITR 536 (All.) and Venus Auto Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 321....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... produced the name of six employees (extract from attendance/pay register, invoices and ledger copy of SCI International Securities, bank statement, (highlighting payments made to the man power agency) before the ld. Assessing Officer. We have perused the record and found that for different months from April (page 139) to March (Page 152), the number of workers varies from eleven to thirteen, which are based upon the summary shit of muster book evidencing that during the relevant period, the assessee employed more than ten workers. Another plea raised by the Assessing Officer/ld. CIT-DR is that mere furnishing of names or proof of payment does not establish that these persons were employed by the assessee. At this stage, at best, it can be ....