TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (2) TMI 1101
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e is duly covered in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal order dated 14.06.2013 in I.T.A. No. 397/Del/2010 & 2210/Del/2012 in assessee's own case for the Assessment Years 2006-07 and 2008-09. 3. Ld. D.R. fairly conceded that the issue was covered in favour of the assessee. 4. After going through the material on record along with Tribunal order dated 14.06.2013, we find that the assessee is a partnership firm and has claimed deduction u/s 80-IC which the A.O. had denied. However, Ld. CIT(A) had allowed deduction in Assessment Year 2006-07 and 2008-09 and the Tribunal had upheld the action of Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 14.06.2013. The Hon'ble Tribunal in its order has reproduced the findings of Ld. CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2008-09....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....td. dated 07.07.2006 for the fabrication, supply, shot/sand blasting, painting and erection of 1500 MT of steel structures for its steel project at Agartala. As per the order, the entire work was to be executed strictly in conformity with technical details provided to the appellant through detailed fabrication drawings made available by M/s. Dharampal Premchand Ltd. As held by the High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Northern Aromatics Ltd. (supra), the activity of the assessee is to be regarded as manufacturing activity irrespective of the facts whether the products manufactured by it are for its own business or it is doing job work for others. The appellant has produced, during the assessment proceedings as well as appellate proceed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant has also produced details and bills of purchase of raw material comprising nuts, bolts, rods, M.S.angles, channels, HR sheets, metal paints etc. After carefully considering the various evidences filed, I am unable to uphold the finding of the Assessing Officer that no manufacturing activity has been carried out by the appellant. In my opinion, the appellant has furnished adequate evidence of fabrication and assembly of the steel structure for the steel project of M/s. Dharampal Premchand Ltd. at Agartala. The evidences relied on by the Assessing Officer, namely the few numbers of regular employees, and the deserted appearance of the factory shed, have been satisfactorily explained by the appellant. There can be no reasonable doubt that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... However, the appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal allowed the claim. On a reference: Held, that having regard to the findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal, the assessee company squarely fell within the meaning of 'industrial company' whether or not the income from the activities exceeded 51 per cent. It was entitled per cent. It was entitled to the reduced rate of tax." 10. The Ld.CIT(A) has relied on the following case laws which in our view are applicable to the facts of the case. i. CIT vs. Alcam Engineering P.Ltd., 336 ITR 294 ii. CIT vs. Northern Aromatics Ltd., 196 CTR 479 (Del) iii. CIT vs. Impel Forge & Allied Industries Ltd., 326 ITR 27 (P&H) 11. Applying the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e said addition was deleted by the CIT(A)' XXIII vide order dated 27.11.2009, wherein a detailed analysis of the manufacturing processes carried on by the appellant had been made. It is further seen that the appeal of the appellant for Assessment Year 2008-09 has been allowed in its favour by this office order dated 30.01.2012. It was found that the appellant had carried out the contract of fabrication, supply, shot/sand blasting, painting and erection of 1500 metric tonnes of steel structures for the steel project at Agartala of M/s Dharmpal Premchand Ltd. The entire work was executed in conformity with technical details provided through detailed fabrication drawings of the client. The appellant had produced copies of excise returns fi....