Commissioner of Income-tax, Asansol v. Black Diamond Explosives Private Limited
[Citation -2015-LL-0204-17]
| Citation | 2015-LL-0204-17 |
|---|---|
| Appellant Name | Commissioner of Income-tax, Asansol |
| Respondent Name | Black Diamond Explosives Private Limited |
| Court | HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA |
| Relevant Act | Income-tax |
| Date of Order | 04/02/2015 |
| Judgment | View Judgment |
| Keyword Tags | industrial undertaking |
| Bot Summary: | MRS.SMITA DAS DE,ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT MR.J.P.KHAITAN,SR.ADVOCATE, MR.SANJOY BHOWMIK, MR.C.S. DAS, ADVOCATES FOR RESPONDENT The Court : The question framed at the time of admission of the appeal reads as follows; Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case Income Tax Tribunal was justified in law in dismissing the appeal of the Revenue and erred in 2 deciding the case in favour of the assessee notwithstanding assessee s non fulfillment of the conditions laid down in Section 80 IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 The Assessing Officer after analysing the evidence was of the opinion that production in this case commenced on 27th March, 1994. In order to attract the benefits of Section 80 IB the Industrial undertaking should begin to manufacture or produce the articles at any time during the period beginning on 1st April, 1995. An unit which commenced production prior to 1st April, 1995 is clearly outside the purview of the benefits contemplated by Section 80 IB. The benefits are obviously meant for new industries and not for the old ones. The C.I.T.(Appeals) held that production was commenced by the assessee on 30th August, 1996 and the assessee was entitled to the benefit. Aggrieved by the order of the C.I.T.(Appeals), the revenue preferred an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal who, according to the revenue, upheld the order without examining the matter. The revenue is once again in appeal before us. The question framed is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the revenue for the reasons indicated above. |