2016 (7) TMI 454

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f law was framed by the Court for consideration :- "Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessee was engaged in manufacturing activities for being entitled to deduction u/s 80HH and 80I of the Income-Tax Act, 1961?" 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant has drawn the attention of this Court to the decision in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Hynoup Food & Oil Industries in Tax Appeal No.1091/2005 dated 20.07.2011 and relevant paragraphs of the said decision reads as under :- 4. As the question no.(C) is repetitive in nature and for many assessment years in case of this very assessee, same issue has been cropping up, same is firstly dealt with in the present ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... compared to other years. Tribunal noted contention of the assessee that the production recorded and maintained by the assessee were being checked and supervised by the Food and Civil Supply department of the Government. Periodic reports and returns were submitted by the assessee. No irregularities were noticed. Tribunal also relied on the report of one M/s. Vulcl laval, supplier of machinery to the assessee for manufacturing of refined cotton seed oil who had stated that process loss is typically found depending on the quality of raw cotton seed and functioning of the plant and would normally range between 2.65% to 4.20%. It can thus be seen that It can thus be seen that the tribunal based its findings on several factors and came to the co....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed out by the Revenue before this Court to take a different view than already taken in case of this very assessee, the question no.(C) in the present case also is being answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. 6. Question No.(A) relates to entitlement of assessee for direction under Section 32A where the Assessing Officer allowed such deduction by not treating the activities carried out by the assessee as manufacturing activity. CIT(Appeals) allowed the same and the tribunal also confirmed the view of CIT(Appeals). 7. While dealing with the issue tribunal had depended on decision of Apex Court in case of Parshuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. V.s ITO reported in (1977) 106 ITR 1. Tribunal also relied on the decision of Ra....