Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Jupiter Remedies (P) Ltd, Mumbai vs Department Of Income Tax on 12 February, 2010
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI BENCHES, 'I', MUMBAI
BEFORE S/SHRI D.K. AG ARW AL (JM) AND T.R.SOOD (A.M )
ITA No.3120/M um/2010
(Assessment Year:2007-08)
Assistant Commissioner of M/s Jupiter Remedies (P)
Incom e Tax, Ltd.,
Circle 2(1), (Now Known as Advance
Room No.575, V/s Remedies (P) Ltd.)
5 t h Floor, 12, Gunbow Street,
Aayakar Bhavan, Fort,
M.K.Road, Mumbai-400001
Mumbai-400020 P AN: AAACO1162G
APPELLAN T RESPONDENT
Appellant by : Shri S.K.Singh
Respondent by : Shri D.R.Jain
O R D E R
PER D.K. AGAR WAL (JM) This appeal preferred by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 12.2.2010 passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A) for the assessment year 2007-08. .
2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of pharmaceutical products, filed ret urn declaring an income of Rs.1,28,80,716/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee has claimed deduction under section 80-IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (the Act) amounting to Rs. 50,38,314/-. The AO has not 2 IT A No .3120/M um/2010 ( As s e s s m e n t Y e a r : 2 0 0 7 - 0 8 ) allowed the claim of the assessee on the ground that th e assessee is doing labour jobs on contract basis and therefore the assessee is not eligible for deduction under section 80- IB of the Act on contract receipt and accordingly the AO after disallowing the deduction claimed under section 80-IB completed the assessment at an income of Rs.1,79,19,034/- vide order dated 23.9.2009 passed under section 143(3) of the Act. On appeal, the learned Commissioner of Incom e Tax (A) following the appellate order in the assessee's own case for the assessment year 2006-07 and the judgment in the case of CIT V/s Taj Fire W orks Industries (288 ITR 92), CIT V/s Northern Arom atics Ltd. (196 CTR 479) and the decision of the Tribunal in Advance Rem edies Pvt.Ltd. in ITA No.5714/Mum/2008 (AY-2005-06) order dated 31.8.2009 held that the job work charges recei ved by the assessee is eligible for deduction under secti on 80-IB of the Act and accordingly allowed the claim of the assessee.
3. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Commissioner of Incom e Tax (A), the Revenue is in appeal before us challenging in all the grounds the deletion of disallowance of deduction under section 80-IB of the Act.
4. At the time of hearing, the learned D.R. supports the order of the AO.
2
3 IT A No .3120/M um/2010 ( As s e s s m e n t Y e a r : 2 0 0 7 - 0 8 )
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the assessee while relyi ng on the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A) submits that the issue stands covered in favour of the assessee by the order of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case in The ACIT 2(1) V/s M/s.Jupiter Remedies (P) Ltd. in ITA No.681/M/2010 (AY- 2006-07) order dated 31.08.2010, therefore, the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A) be upheld. He also placed on record the copy of the said order of the Tribunal.
6. Having carefully heard the submissions of the rival parties and perusing the material available on record we find merit in the plea of the learned counsel for the assessee that the issue stands covered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee by the order of the Tribunal in assessee's own case (supra) wherein the Tribunal vide paragraph 3 of the order dated 31.8.2010 has held as under :
"3. W e have heard both the parties perused the records and considered the matter carefully. The dispute is regarding allowability of deduction under section 80IB in respect of manufacturing of pharmaceutical formulation on job work basis. There is no dispute that the assessee was manufacturing form ulations using bulk drugs and the final products were commercially distinct from the raw m aterial and therefore it is a case of manufacturing activity. The claim has been disallowed by the AO on the ground the goods had been produced on job work basis for others. But the deduction cannot be 3 4 IT A No .3120/M um/2010 ( As s e s s m e n t Y e a r : 2 0 0 7 - 0 8 ) disallowed only on the ground that the assessee is manufacturing goods for others on job work basis as held by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in case of CIT Vs Taj Fire W orks Industries (288 ITR 92). Sam e view has been taken by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case of CIT Vs Northern Aromatics Ltd. (196 ITR 479). No contrary judgm ent of the jurisdictional High Court or the Apex Court has been brought to our notice. W e therefore see no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) allowi ng the deduction to the assessee and the same is therefore upheld."
In the absence of any distinguishi ng feature brought on record by the Revenue, we respectfully f ollowing the order of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case (supra) hold that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A) was f ully justified in holding that in the facts and circumstances of the case job work charges received by the assessee is eligible for deduction under section 80-IB of the Act and accordingly the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A) is upheld. The grounds taken by the Revenue are therefore rejected.
7. In the result, the Revenue's appeal stands dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 10 t h June, 2011.
Sd sd (T.R.SOOD) (D.K. AGARWAL) ACCOUNTAN T M EMBER JUDICI AL MEM BER Mumbai, Dated 10th June, 2011. SRL: 4 5 IT A No .3120/M um/2010 ( As s e s s m e n t Y e a r : 2 0 0 7 - 0 8 ) Cop y to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT Concerned 4. CIT(A) concerned 5. DR concerned Bench 6. Guard file. BY ORDER True copy ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI 5