Vikshara Trading & Investment ... vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 30 March, 1998
9. Shah further argued that the observations of the AO that there was one common laboratory was not correct. In fact there were four separate laboratories. The learned counsel, therefore, concluded that each unit was distinguishable, and accordingly the assessee was entitled to deduction under s. 80-I in respect of each unit. Regarding the contention of the AO that the labourers working in the assessee's manufacturing unit cannot be treated as employees of the assessee but of the contractors engaged by the assessee, the learned counsel contended that while the bills were raised by the contractors all payments were directly made to the workmen each and every payment was also entered in the wages register. According to the learned counsel these workers were under the de facto control of the assessee-company. The contractors did not have any independent source of income or any independent factory. It was the assessee's manufacturing unit which provided the jobs to the labourers as well as the contractors. He, therefore, concluded that the assessee had engaged more than 10 workers and accordingly the assessee was entitled to deduction under s. 80-I, in view of the decision of the Tribunal, Ahmedabad 'A' Bench in Prithviraj Bhoorchand vs. Asstt. CIT (1993) 47 TTJ (Ahd) 179 : (1993) 47 ITD 361 (Ahd).