PRO COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX, DELHI - 9 vs. WOOVEN GOLD ACRYLIC INDIA PVT. LTD

$~2 to 5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 791/2016, C.M. APPL.41572/2016

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI- 9..... Appellant

versus

WOOVEN GOLD ACRYLIC INDIA PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent

+ ITA 792/2016, C.M. APPL.41573/2016

PRO COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX, DELHI - 9..... Appellant

versus

WOOVEN GOLD ACRYLIC INDIA PVT. LTD ..... Respondent

+ ITA 793/2016, C.M. APPL.41574/2016

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI- 9..... Appellant

versus

WOOVEN GOLD ACRYLIC INDIA PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent

+ ITA 796/2016, C.M. APPL.41592/2016

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI - 9..... Appellant

versus

WOOVEN GOLD ACRYLIC INDIA PVT. LTD ..... Respondent Through : Sh. Raghvendra Singh and Sh. Rahul Chaudhary, Sr. Standing Counsel, for the Revenue. Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Kavita Jha and Ms. Roopali Gupta, Advocates, for respondent, in Item No.5. Sh. Rajeev Saxena, Sh. Shashwat Bajpai and Sh. Sharad Agarwal, Advocates, for respondents.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

O R D E R %

14.12.2016

The common question of law urged in these appeals is as to the

correctness of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal’s (ITAT) decision with respect to the assessee’s eligibility to claim benefit under Section 80IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereafter “the Act”]. The relevant facts are that the assessee manufactures goods classified by the Indian Trade Classification (No.39.22) – baths, shower baths, wash basins, bidets, lavatory pans, seats and covers, flushing cisterns, similar sanitary wares of plastics etc. The Assessing Officer (AO) questioned the classification and was of the opinion that in view of the use of certain articles for the production of these goods, such as fibre glass etc., the benefit of Section 80IC of the Act was granted improperly. After examining the submissions, the AO concluded that Section 80IC benefit could not be given and upheld the claim in that behalf. CIT(A) and ITAT, however, differed with the AO and set aside his order. It was reasoned that the use of prohibited articles such as fibre glass for the making of an entirely different final product which did not figure in the list of prohibited items in the thirteenth Schedule of the Act per se did not amount to their manufacture and that as long as the finished goods did not figure in the list of prohibited items, it could qualify for the benefit.

We have considered the submissions of the parties and are of the opinion that the ITAT’s view on this aspect is sound and does not call for interference. Moreover, for other years, i.e. AYs 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2014-15, the Revenue has consistently upheld the assessee’s claim. No question of law, therefore, arises.

The other surviving question has been raised in respect of AY

2007-08, i.e. with respect to a loss claimed. The AO had initially rejected the assessee’s claim, which, however, succeeded before the CIT(A). The Revenue’s appeal was rejected. Having regard to the nature of evidence which are factual and arose only for one year, we are of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises. The appeals are accordingly dismissed along with the pending applications.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J

NAJMI WAZIRI, J DECEMBER 14, 2016 ájk