TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (6) TMI 168
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....We have heard the senior counsel Sri P. K. R. Menon appearing for the appellant and the senior counsel Sri P. Balachandran appearing for the respondent. 3. The common issue raised for all the years is whether the assessee was entitled to deduction under section 80-IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called "the Act") in respect of the "third series" of plant put up for production of ossein. In the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer conducted an inspection of the new plant for which section 80-IA relief was claimed and he found that the plant is not a distinct and separate industrial unit inasmuch as certain common facilities are used for the new plant like conveyor system for raw materials, storage tanks, etc. So far as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rage tank, etc., does not make it part of the old industry. He specifically referred to substantial investment made, increase in production capacity, etc., as factors proving for the setting up of a new plant. Reference is invited to the test laid down by the Supreme Court in Textile Machinery Corporation Ltd. 's case [1977] 107 ITR 195, for deciding as to whether the industry set up in respect of which relief claimed under section 80-IA is a new industry or not. The Tribunal has addressed on the tests laid down by the Supreme Court and came to the conclusion that all the tests are satisfied. The Revenue, however, is contesting the finding of fact by the Tribunal by stating that if the Tribunal wanted to enter into a finding different from ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... inspection. 5. The senior counsel for the Revenue contended that the Tribunal has no new material to arrive at a conclusion different from what the Assessing Officer has recorded. He has, therefore, pressed for requirement of inspection by the Tribunal to enter into a finding as to whether the claim of setting up of a new industry by the assessee is correct or not. It is not known, whether, in the course of time, there is restructuring of the industry or whether there is any change that will make it difficult for the Tribunal to ascertain the position pertaining to 14 years back now. In any case, since counsel for the Revenue has pressed for inspection by the Tribunal before rendering a decision and since no new materials are brought fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rtilizers Ltd. v. CIT [1977] 227 ITR 172. The finding of the Tribunal is that whatever be the pattern of accounting of the amount, the assessee has incurred a statutory liability. In fact, there was liability to pay the cess and the same was, in fact, paid in the previous year relevant to the assessment year. We find that the payment is under a central legislation and is in the nature of cess which is rightly allowed by the Tribunal under section 43B of the Act. We, therefore, decline to interfere with the finding of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal on this issue. 7. The next issue pertains to the disallowance of deduction claimed under section 35AB of the Act for the technical know-how fees paid for the expansion of project for setting....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ach and every payment made above Rs. 20,000 other than through cheque or demand draft. Since the amendment authorising clubbing of expenditure for the purpose of disallowance is to take place in the next financial year, the Tribunal's order to make the disallowance with reference to the individual payments is perfectly correct. We, therefore, decline to interfere with the Tribunal's order on this issue. 9. The last contention raised pertains to the disallowance of a total sum of Rs. 6,56,070 which is an expenditure relating to scrapped K. P. gelatine project and expenditure for gel bone development. The Tribunal is finding that the part of expenditure is incurred in the form of payment towards consultant's fees for conducting the feasibi....