TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (8) TMI 1657
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to as 'the Revenue'), by filing the present appeals sought to set aside the impugned order dated 23.01.2012 and 29.05.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax-II, Dehradun, for the Assessment Years 2009-10 & 2010-11 respectively on the grounds inter alia that :- ITA NO.5787/DEL/2012 (AY 2009-10) "1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) was correct, on facts and in the circumstances of the case, in owing the claim of deduction u/s 80IC of the I.T. Act, 1961 and not appreciating the fact that the assessee is not engaged in any manufacturing activity and no any new product is being manufactured except fine tuning of the product and other than this only manipulation of accounts" 2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) was correct, on facts....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... further made addition of Rs. 13,00,000/- on account of disallowance of capital introduction in the name of Vinak K. Naik during the year under assessment on the ground that since the assessee company is closely held company where only family members are interested, the assessee is required to prove the genuineness of the capital introduction which the assessee has failed to prove and as such, capital introduction in case of Vinak K. Naik remained unexplained. 3. During Assessment Year 2010-11, assessee after declaring net profit of Rs. 2,20,12,413.14 and claimed the entire amount as deduction u/s 80-IC of the Act. Assessee was called upon to explain manufacturing process indicating the name of raw material used and name of the final pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....th different nomenclature under internal arrangement with its sister concerns. 7. However, on the other hand, ld. AR for the assessee to repel the argument addressed by the ld. DR contended that no additional evidence has been taken on record by ld. CIT (A) nor any such evidence was pointed out by the ld. DR, rather remand report was called upon by the ld. CIT (A) during appellate proceedings; that assessee's unit is duly registered with State Sales-tax Department as a manufacturing unit and it is also registered as SSI Unit with Department of Industries; that even if, the assessee company is into jobwork, it is entitled for deduction u/s 80-IC of the Act. 8. Undisputedly, the assessee is manufacturing crank shaft. It is also not in d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... under :- "Deduction u/s 80 IB - AO held that the scrap sale charges and job work/labour charges are to be excluded for the purpose of giving effect to deduction under Section 80 IB of the Act - Held that - the activity of forging was "manufacturing" within the ambit of Section 80lB - It was immaterial that the assessee was doing the job of forging also for customers and was charging them on job-work basis or on the basis of labour charges. It will still be qualified as carrying eligible business under Section 80lB - the activities of the assessee in giving heat treatment for which it had earned labour charges and job-work charges, it can thus be said that the appellant had done a process on the raw material which was nothing but a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the assessee in relation to raw or untreated crank shafts being subjected to heat treatment, etc., is definitely a "manufacturing activity" entitling it to claim "investment allowance" under section 32A of the Income-tax Act. We answer questions Nos. 2 and 3 accordingly. In fine, we hold that the assessee is engaged in manufacturing activities in relation to crankshafts being subjected to heat treatment, etc., for the assessment years 1984-85, 1985-86 and 1986-87 and, consequently, entitled to "investment allowance" under section 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. These tax case petitions are, thus, disposed of. There shall, however, be no order as to costs, in the circumstances of the case." 12. So far as question of entertaining addit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tted ITR for AY 2009-10 only and nothing else". 15. When the Director of the company has brought on record his ITR for AY 2009-10 it was for the Revenue to call supporting documents, if needed, but he has not preferred to do so and impliedly admitted the genuineness of the capital introduced by the assessee. So, in these circumstances, we are of the considered view that there is no illegality or perversity in deleting the addition of Rs. 13,00,000/- by ld. CIT (A) made by the AO. Consequently, Ground No.2 of ITA No.5787/Del/2012 (AY 2009-10) is determined against the Revenue. GROUND NO.2 OF ITA NO.4521/DEL/2013 (AY 2010-11) 16. AO made an addition of Rs. 5,08,408.06 (Rs. 2,41,250/- + Rs. 2,67,158/-) on the ground that the payment o....