TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (8) TMI 776
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming the order passed by the CIT (A) deleting the addition of Rs. 67,27,920/made by the Assessing Officer by rejecting the book result of the assessee and estimating sale and G.P.?" 3. Tax Appeal No.1250 of 2007 and Tax Appeal No.1253 of 2007 challenge the order dated 22/12/2016 made by the ITAT in ITA No.1147/Ahd/1999 and ITA No.902/Ahd/1997 respectively and came to be admitted on the following questions of law: "Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of the claim of the assessee u/s.80IA made by the Assessing Officer on the ground that: [a] the assessee was manufacturing article which was specified in the list of Xith Sc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the subsequent year i.e. in assessment year 199596, the same G.P. rate has been accepted by the Department. It is a fact that the cost of raw materials has increased. It is also seen that 100% goods are sold to its sister concern and therefore the question of GP does not arise. The A.O. could not find that the assessee had sold finished goods at a lesser price to its sister concern. In our opinion, low profits and absence of regular stock register are not sufficient reasons for rejection of the accounts of assessee. Hence, the CIT (A) and Tribunal were justified in deleting the addition. Both the authorities below have considered the materials placed before them and we see no reason to interfere with the same. Accordingly, we answer the i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or deduction under ss.SOHH and 80J of the Act, on the ground that the assessee got certain processes done from outsiders on the piecemeal basis and that the assessee had not provided regular employment to any person in its manufacturing process, held that the Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that the persons doing the work were employed by the assessee because the assessee was controlling not only the work to be done by those persons but also the manner of doing of the work. The Court further held that the Assessing Officer and the AAC were not right in holding that the concerned persons were not employees because they were being paid on piecerate basis or job work basis. In the present case, the Tribunal has found that the as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at it has been wrongly held by CIT (A) that the excluded items are eligible for depreciation at different rate. In view of above discussion, grounds no.4 & 5 are allowed for statistical purposes." 7.1 In above view of the matter, when the issue was discussed at length by the Tribunal, this Court is in complete agreement with the said findings. The Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion by considering the material placed before it. Accordingly, we answer the issue raised in Tax Appeal No.1250 of 2007 and Tax Appeal No.1253 of 2007 in favour of the assessee and against the Department. 8. So far as Tax Appeal No.1252 of 2007 where the question of deleting the disallowance made by the AO under Section 80IA on the ground that the aggrega....