Ita/25/2014 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-1 v. M/S Poabs Granite Products Pvt Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE DR. MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH 2014/21ST PHALGUNA, 1935 ITA.No. 25 of 2014 -------------------------- [AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH IN I.T.A. NO.87/COCH/2013 DTD. 05/09/2013- ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10] ............. APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/REVENUE: -------------------------------------------------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTTAYAM. BY SRI. P.K. RAVINDRANATH MENON, SENIOR ADVOCATE, SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, S.C. RESPONDENTT/APPELLANT/ASSEESSEE: ------------------------------------------------------------- M/S. POABS GRANITE PRODUCTS PVT., LTD,, WEST OTHERA.POST, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA – 689 106. THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-03-2014, ALONG WITH I.T.A. NO.31/2014,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Prv. I.T.A.NO.25/2014: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE -A: ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S. 143 (3) DT. 20/12/2011.ANNEXURE-B: CIT (APPEALS) ORDER NO.ITA-41/TVLA/11-12 DT. 13/12/2012. ANNEXURE-C: I.T.A.T'S ORDER NO.87/COCH/2013 DT. 05/09/2013. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. MANJULA CHELLUR, C.J & A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J. ---------------------------------------------- I.T.A.Nos. 25 of 2014and 31 of 2014 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12[th] March, 2014 JUDGMENT Manjula Chellur, C.J. The respondent-assessee company is engaged in thebusiness of granite quarrying and metal crushing. The issuepertains to assessment year 2009-2010 in respect of twodifferent units. The controversy is whether additionaldepreciation under Section 32(1)(a) and also benefits availableunder Section 80-IB of the Income tax Act could be extendedor not. A similar question pertaining to different units came upfor consideration in I.T.A. No. 576/2009 before this Court. Thesubstantial question of law was answered in favour of theassessee by judgment dated 20.1.2014. As a matter of fact,with reference to assessment year in earlier appeal, there wasno definition for the word 'manufacture'. By virtue of Finance I.T.A.Nos. 25 of 2014and31 of 2014 2 Act, 2009, the word 'manufacture' is defined which can be considered from assessment year 2009-2010 onwards. In thelight of definition 'manufacture' being introduced, the case ofthe respondent-assessee deserves to be answered in his favourupholding the opinion of the Tribunal. Accordingly appeals are dismissed in terms of I.T.A.No.576/2009. Sd/- MANJULA CHELLUR, CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE rka13.3.14 /true copy/