Case Law Details
CIT Vs Vetrivel Minerals (Madras High Court)
The issue under consideration is whether the tribunal is correct in holding that the assessee is carrying on manufacturing activity as per SEZ Act, 2005 and hence eligible for deduction U/s.10AA?
High Court states that the tribunal re-appreciated the factual position and found that there is a process of ‘manufacture’ as defined under the SEZ Act, which takes place in the SEZ unit and also pointed out that the Assessing Officer himself has accepted that the assessee’s unit, processed the raw materials by removing 10 to 20% impurities. Cost comparison of the semi finished product with that of the raw material was also referred to and it was also pointed out that the Assessing Officer could not establish that the assessee has suppressed the purchase cost of semi-finished goods in order to claim higher deduction under Section 10AA of the Act. Furthermore, the certificate issued by the Assistant Development Officer was accepted on the ground that the revenue could not prove the same to be not genuine. Therefore, the tribunal sustained the factual finding recorded by the CIT(A). Thus, in considered view of HC, the entire factual matrix has not only been analyzed by the CIT(A), but, also by the tribunal. Therefore, the Tax Case Appeal fails and the same is dismissed.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER /JUDGEMENT
This appeal by the revenue filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’ for brevity), is directed against the order dated 20.09.2017 in ITA No.706/Mds/2017 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, ‘A’ Bench, for the Assessment Year 2013-14.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
