Case Law Details
Brief of the Case
Bombay High court held In the case of M/s Vijay Udhyog vs. CIT that where two opinion or views are available and one of the view is taken by the AO, cannot be a basis for revision of order u/s 263. Also none of the clauses of section 80I(2)(i) to (iv) prohibit the assessee from taking other industrial undertakings on hire and use it for the purpose of manufacturing activity.
Facts of the Case
Assessee was a partnership firm carrying on business of manufacturing of pulses. It engaged a party for crushing of the raw material at a fixed rate per quintal. It was agreed that Assessee will make payment of all the wages of Labourers, cartgage and transporations expenses and also will meet the all liabilities towards various labour acts and factories act including repairing of machineries. Assessee claimed deduction u/s 80I of the Act which was also allowed by the AO. Later the deduction was challenged by the Commissioner u/s 263 on the ground that assessee is not owner of a new unit, in fact he taken a new unit on hire basis. This order was challenged before ITAT which held that it is covered under the purview of section 263.
Contention of the Assessee
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
