TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (6) TMI 780
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessee and the Revenue were heard together and are being disposed off by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 3. The assessee has raised following ground of appeal: "1. On the facts and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the denial of deduction u/s 80IC in respect of 'Other Income" of Rs. 14,36,998/- by agreeing with the AO that the said income was not derived from the business of the eligible Undertaking. Learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the said income was not an 'independent source of income' of the Undertaking and hence could not have been excluded for determining the deduction claimed and allowable u/s 80IC to the appellant firm." 4. The Revenue has raised following gr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ble Supreme Court in Liberty India Vs. CIT (317 ITR 218)(SC), wherein it is held as under :- "The words "derived from" are narrower in connotation as compared to the words "attributable to". In other words, by using the expression "derived from", Parliament intended to cover sources, not beyond the first degree." 8. The assessee is in appeal against the said disallowance made. The learned A.R. for the assessee placed reliance on the ratio laid down in Arvind Fashions Ltd. Vs. ACIT, (37 SOT 369 (Ahd)) and pointed out that the same are first degree income of the industrial undertaking, which could not be alienated from the manufacturing activities carried out by the assessee. 9. The learned D.R. for the Revenue placed reliance ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....T (supra), before holding the assessee to be eligible for deduction under section 80IC of the Act, it is to be determined whether the income earned by the assessee is derived from manufacturing business carried on by the assessee. 12. The Ahmedabad Bench of Tribunal in Arvind Fashions Ltd. Vs. ACIT (supra) has considered the eligibility of various items of other income being derived from the business of the eligible industrial undertaking, on which deduction under section 80IB of the Act was claimed by the assessee and held as under : i) Interest income on bank deposit is not to be treated as derived from industrial undertaking. ii) Duty Drawback was also held to be not derived from the industrial undertaking in view of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it and hence eligible for deduction under section 80IC of the Act. However, the assessee is not entitled to the deduction claimed under section 80IC of the Act on the misc. income received being refund of security deposit and the insurance claim on machinery repairs. In view thereof we direct the Assessing Officer to recompute the deduction allowable under section 80IC of the Act. The ground No.1 raised by the assessee is partly allowed. 14. In I.T.A.No. 255/Chd/2011 the issue in ground No.1 raised is against the allowance of deduction under section 80IC of the Act on job work charges. 15. The learned A.R. for the assessee pointed out that the issue stands covered by the order of the Tribunal in assessee's own case. 16. The Assessi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing. The Assessing Officer held these to be of enduring in nature and a sum of Rs. 6,41,303/- was capitalized. The CIT(A) under para 15 at pages 8 and 9 had tabulated the expenditure of Rs. 6,41,303/-. The explanation of the assessee before the CIT(A) was as under : "Expenses were incurred on painting of various sections of the existing building including shop floor. Brick work and plastering, replacement of door etc. also was carried out to the existing building and there was no extension to the building or usable area of the building and hence fully allowable u/s 30 of the Act being current repairs. Reliance also placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v Saravana Spg. Mills (P) Ltd. 293 ITR 201 (SC....