In Itxa/152/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 4 v. M/S Leebo Metals P Ltd, the High Court (2011) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: The first question is, whether the activity carried out by the assessee in making non-ferrous wires from big gauge rods is an activity entitled to deduction under section 80IB of the Act.
Decision: Hence the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
sas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.152 OF 2010
The Commissioner of Income Tax-4
..Appellant.
V/s.
M/s. Leebo Metals P. Ltd.
..Respondent.
Mrs. Padma Divakjar for appellant.
Mr.P.J. Pardiwala, senior Advocate with A.K.Jasani for respondent.
CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ.DATED : 11TH JANUARY, 2011
P.C. :-
1.Two questions are raised by the revenue in this appeal. The first question is, whether the activity carried out by the assessee in making non-ferrous wires from big gauge rods is an activity entitled to deduction under section 80IB of the Act. The Tribunal relied upon the decisions of various Courts and considering the expression 'manufacture' in Section 80IB which includes 'production' of any article, has come to the conclusion that the assessee is engaged in the production of an article and hence entitled to deduction under Section 80IB of the Act. No fault can be found with the reasoning given by the
ITAT.
2.The second question raised by the revenue is that the assessee did not have requisite number of employees for grant of deduction under Section 80IB of the Act. The Tribunal, based on the material on record has recorded a finding of fact that the assessee has employed requisite number of employees. The decision of the Tribunal is based on the finding of fact and no question of law arises. Hence the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
(MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)
(J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.