TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (1) TMI 330
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arwal (Judicial Member) These two appeals of respective assessees preferred by the Revenue are directed against the separate orders dated 19.3.2010 passed by the ld.CIT(A) for the Assessment Year 2007-08. Since facts are identical and issue involved is common both these appeals are disposed of by this common order for the sake of conveyance. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case extracted from the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....see failed to substantiate that assessee commenced its production before 31.3.2004 as is mandatory for claim of deduction u/s 80IB(4). (b) It was held in the assessment that aseseee is not engaged in comprehensive manufacturing process. Reliance was placed on catina of judicial pronouncements; and (c) Various other factors described therein." He further observed that on appeal, the ld. CIT(A)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....substantiate commencement of production by 31.3.2004 as also without appreciating the fact that fabrication of SS sheets is not a comprehensive manufacturing activity so as to qualify for deduction u/s 80IB(4)." 5. At the time of hearing, both the parties have agreed that in the assessee's own group cases in ITO V/s Dinesh H Shah and ITO V/s Smt.Deepali J.Shah and vice-versa in ITA No.4958 and 49....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... We, therefore, deem it proper to set aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to decide the issue afresh. Needless to say the Assessing Officer shall give due opportunity of being hearing to the assessee and decide the issue in accordance with law. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the revenue are accordingly allowed for statistical purpose." In the abs....