AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (8) TMI 729
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n relation to the Assessment Year 2004-05. 2. The Appeal was admitted by this Court on 15.7.2008 on the following substantial questions of law: "(a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal erred in holding that the Appellant is not entitled to the deduction under Section 80 IB of the Act? (b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Appellant carries on manufacturing activity of electronics computer products within the meaning of section 80 IB of the Act? (c) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the term manufacturer under Section 80 IB would include manufacturing activity being carried out outsourced to another party?" 3. That di....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re office equipments. Therefore, the assessee is not using electricity in its manufacturing and accordingly is required to have at least 20 workers to qualify itself for deduction u/s.80IB. 4 The A.O. has observed that appellant filed another list of eleven persons employed by them which includes three directors, one accountant and for the remaining no designations were available and accordingly has concluded that at the most only seven employees were utilized. The A.O. has also observed that the assessee did not submit the qualification of these workers despite the proceedings going on for 8 months. 5 The A.O. issued a show cause incorporating therein the intention of the legislature behind Section 80 IB to encourage employment in backwa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly one lady accountant on the rolls of the assessee and for the remaining period of three months of the relevant year, five more employees had joined. (v) The assessee has not given the designation and qualification of its employees in spite of specific query put by the Assessing Officer during the course of the assessment proceedings itself. (vi) There was no evidence on record to show that director or any employee of the Appellants was going regularly to Silvassa for supervision of manufacturing process. (vii) That the distance between the assessee's office and Silvassa is about 50 kms. and regular supervision by the director of the assessee-company would entail huge conveyance expenses which is conspicuously missing. (viii) Asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ansferred its machinery to its associate concern, i.e., Roche Products Ltd. another pharmaceutical concern, and started getting its products manufactured from Roche Products retaining its control over the manufacture. In the said judgment, it is observed that 'it is not absolutely necessary that the assesssee must depute the supervisory staff or exercise direct supervision over the manufacturing process of the kind suggested by the learned counsel. It is sufficient if, on an overall view of the matter, it is found that it was the assessee-company which was the real manufacturer and the assessee had merely employed the agency of some one else through whom the goods were caused to be manufactured. It is also not necessary that the assesse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of electronic computers at the factory premises of M/s. Kobian ECS India Pvt. Ltd. in Silvassa. In fact, the observations in the findings recorded by the Assessing Officer, CIT(A) show that the assessee could not even produce the primary evidence in the shape of books of accounts, resolutions, even to suggest that it had deployed its manpower at the factory premises of M/s. Kobian ECS India Pvt. Ltd. and had retained the control over the manufacturing activity. The Appellants could not produce particulars like attendance register, qualifications of the employees in spite of being asked to do so by the Assessing Officer. In fact, it appears even the packaging material was supplied to contract manufacturer by the Appellants-Company for finis....