2016 (12) TMI 406

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r Section 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act, came to be allowed though the respondents/assessees were carrying out processing of iron ore. 3. Ms. Asha Desai, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that such activities cannot be considered to be "production" as, according to her, the respondent is carrying out only processing and not extraction of iron ore. The learned Counsel has, thereafter, taken us through the findings of the Assessing Officer to point out that the explanation given by the respondent was not accepted as the respondents were carrying out processing activities. The learned Counsel has, thereafter, pointed out that as there is no material on record to suggest that the respondents were carrying out extraction ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the assessee is carrying out extraction and processing of iron ore activities. The learned Counsel, as such, submits that there are no substantial questions of law which arise in the present appeal. 5. We have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel and we have also gone through the record. On perusal of the order passed by the CIT(A) we find that it is clearly noted therein that the ITAT while allowing the additional depreciation for the Assessment Year 2002-03 had clearly considered that the respondent/ assessee was engaged in the business of extraction and processing of iron ore. It is also not in dispute that even for the relevant Assessment Years 2006-07 and 2007-08, the same activities were being carried out by the respon....