The Question Of Law Raised In The Above Case Is, Whether v. I.t.appeal

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON MONDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 18TH ASHADHA, 1940 ITA.No. 159 of 2009 AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE ITAT, COCHIN BENCH IN ITA NO.709/2007 DATED27.08.2008 APPELLANT(S)/APPELLANT/APPELLANT: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV.SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT(S): SMT.PREETHA.S.NAIR, P/O M/S NUT PRODUCTS CO.,, KOCHUPILAMOODU, KOLLAM. R, BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-07-2018,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ITA.No. 159 of 2009 APPELLANTS EXHIBITS: APPENDIX ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S143(3) OF INCOME TAX ACT DATED 22.03.2002.INCOME TAX ACT DATED 22.03.2002. ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) DTD 20.08.2004(APPEALS) DTD 20.08.2004 ANNEXURE C TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 7.12.20067.12.2006 ANNEXURE D TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) DATED 22.03.2007.TAX(APPEALS) DATED 22.03.2007. ANNEXURE E TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNALDATED 27.08.2008DATED 27.08.2008 RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL // TRUE COPY // P.A TO JUDGE SB K. VINOD CHANDRAN & ASHOK MENON, JJ ================================ I.T.Appeal No.159 of 2009 ============================= Dated this the 09[th] day of July, 2018J U D G M E N T K. Vinod Chandran, J The question of law raised in the above case is, whether the assessee is entitled to the deduction claimed forprocessing of raw cashew nuts from cashew kernels, carriedon in a factory, not owned by it; entitled for a manufacture,under Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The questionwas considered in the context of sections 80HH and 80J asreported in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Indian Resinsand Polymers [(1999) 235 ITR (5)]. The Court took note ofthe decision reported in CIT v. Rajmohan Cashews (P) Ltd.,[(1990) 185 ITR 472], in which another Division Bench hadtaken a view that, even if the processing is carried on byoutside agencies, it would come within the definition of an“industrial company” under Section 2(6)(c) of the Finance Act,1972. The view is found to have been affirmed in Chillies I.T.Appeal No.159 of 2009 Exports House Ltd. v. CIT [(1997) 225 ITR 814] and in v. Vijaya-laxmi Cashew Co.Deputy CTO, [(1996) 100 STC571]. 2. In the assessee's own case for another assessment year, yet another Division Bench of this Court had allowed theclaim as seen from the decision in ITA No.90 of 2008 dated30.09.2008. Hence, we are of the opinion that no question of lawarises from the order of the Tribunal, which has been settled inthe various decisions of this Court and the Hon'ble SupremeCourt. We, hence reject the appeal, leaving the parties tosuffer their respective costs. Sd/- K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE SB/11/07/2018 // true copy // Sd/- ASHOK MENON, JUDGE