M/s Maa Vaishnov Devi Ginning Pressing Udhyog, Dhar V. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 1(1), Indore

ITA 538/IND/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7135 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-09-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 18-08-2011
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 10-08-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ARUN DEWAN
• Assessee Lawyers: S C GOYAL
• Keywords: Depreciation; Income from undisclosed sources; Scheme of amalgamation
• Section: 80HHC; 133A; 12A

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.538/IND/2010 A.Y. 2007-08 M/S. MAA VAISHNO DEVI GINNING PRESSING UDHYOG, DHAMNOD PAN AAFFM 4114 N APPELLANT VS DCIT-1(1), INDORE RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.C. GOYAL, ADVOCATE DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI ARUN DEWAN, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 18.8.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : .9.2011 O R D E R PER JOGINDER SINGH THIS APPEAL IS BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DA TED 12.5.2010 OF THE LEARNED CIT(A)-I, INDORE ON THE FO LLOWING GROUNDS: 2 1. THAT, ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S 80-IB OF RS.21,07,643/- AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE FIRM. 2. THAT, ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS FURTHER ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S 80-IB OF RS.21,07,643/- AS THE ASSESSEE FIRM DERIVES INCOME FROM INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING ONLY, HENCE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION. 3. THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE, THE LD. CIT(A) BELOW ERRED IN NOT GRANTING DEDUCTION U/S 80IB: A) EXCESS CASH RS.8,98,524/- B) INTEREST CREDITED RS.7,33,623/- C) INCOME FROM WEIGHBRIDGE RS.3,70,710/- 2. DURING THE HEARING, WE HAVE HEARD SHRI S.C. GOYA L, LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE AND SHRI ARUN DEWAN, SR. DR. S O FAR AS GROUND NOS.1 & 2 IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE CONCE RNED, IT PERTAINS TO NOT ALLOWING DEDUCTION OF RS.21,07,643/ - U/S 80-IB OF THE ACT. THE CRUX OF ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE ASS ESSEE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN GINNING AND PRESSIN G OF COTTON, THEREFORE, THE IMPUGNED INCOME IS DERIVED FROM INDU STRIAL UNDERTAKING. OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO PAGES 26 AN D 29 OF 3 THE PAPER BOOK BY FURTHER PLACING RELIANCE UPON THE DECISIONS IN CIT VS. ELTEK SGS P. LTD. (300 ITR 6) (DEL), CIT VS . JAGDISH PRASAD M. JOSHI (318 ITR 420) (BOM), LIBERTY INDIA VS. CIT (317 ITR 218) (SC), CIT VS. ADVANCE DETERGENTS LTD. (228 CTR 356) (DEL), NATIONAL LEGGUARE WORKS VS. CIT (288 IT R 18) (P & H) AND CIT VS. PARAS OIL EXTRACTION LTD. (230 ITR 2 66) (MP). ON THE OTHER HAND, THE CRUX OF ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE EXCESS CASH, INTEREST CREDITED AND INCOME FROM BEVERAGE ARE NOT THE INCOME DERIVED FROM INDUS TRIAL UNDERTAKING, THEREFORE, THE IMPUGNED ORDER WAS SUPP ORTED. A PLEA WAS ALSO RAISED THAT NO EVIDENCE WAS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE EVIDENCING THAT THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT WAS GE NERATED FROM THE MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE. IN REPLY, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSE E IS HAVING ONLY INCOME FROM BUSINESS ACTIVITIES FROM IN DUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING, THEREFORE, IT IS AN ALLOWABLE DEDUCTIO N U/S 80-IB OF THE ACT. ALTERNATIVELY, IT WAS CONTENDED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT GRANTING DEDUCTION U/S 80-IB FOR EXCESS CASH OF RS.8,98,524/-, INTEREST CR EDITED OF 4 RS.7,33,623/- AND INCOME FROM WEIGHBRIDGE TO THE TU NE OF RS.3,70,710/- 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON FILE. BRIEF FACTS ARE THA T SURVEY U/S 133A WAS CARRIED OUT ON 26.2.2007 AT THE BUSINESS P REMISES OF THE ASSESSEE. DURING SURVEY, THE ASSESSEE DECLARED ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.71,41,756/- ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS STOCK AND RS.8,98,524/- ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS CASH. BEFORE COM ING TO ANY CONCLUSION, WE ARE REPRODUCING HEREUNDER THE RELEVA NT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80-IB OF THE ACT. DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF PROFITS AND GAINS FROM CERT AIN INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKINGS OTHER THAN INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT UNDERTAKINGS. 80A 80-IB. (1) WHERE THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME OF AN ASSESSEE INC LUDES ANY PROFITS AND GAINS DERIVED FROM ANY BUSINESS REF ERRED TO IN SUB- SECTIONS (3) TO 81 [(11), (11A) AND (11B) 81A ] (SUCH BUSINESS BEING HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ELIGIBLE BUSINESS), THERE SHALL, IN ACCORDANCE WITH AND SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF TH IS SECTION, BE ALLOWED, IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSES SEE, A DEDUCTION FROM SUCH PROFITS AND GAINS OF AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO S UCH PERCENTAGE AND FOR SUCH NUMBER OF ASSESSMENT YEARS AS SPECIFIED IN THIS SECTION. (2) THIS SECTION APPLIES TO ANY INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAK ING WHICH FULFILS ALL THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS, NAMELY : ( I ) IT IS NOT FORMED 82 BY SPLITTING UP 82 , OR THE RECONSTRUCTION 82 , OF A BUSINESS ALREADY IN EXISTENCE : PROVIDED THAT THIS CONDITION SHALL NOT APPLY IN RESPECT OF A N INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING WHICH IS FORMED AS A RESULT OF THE RE- ESTABLISHMENT, RECONSTRUCTION OR REVIVAL BY THE ASS ESSEE OF THE BUSINESS OF ANY SUCH INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING AS IS REFERRED T O IN SECTION 33B, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND WITHIN THE PERIOD SPECIFIED I N THAT SECTION; 5 ( II ) IT IS NOT FORMED BY THE TRANSFER TO A NEW BUSINES S OF MACHINERY OR PLANT PREVIOUSLY USED FOR ANY PURPOSE; ( III ) IT MANUFACTURES OR PRODUCES ANY ARTICLE OR THING, NOT BEING ANY ARTICLE OR THING SPECIFIED IN THE LIST IN THE E LEVENTH SCHEDULE, OR OPERATES ONE OR MORE COLD STORAGE PLANT OR PLANTS, IN ANY PART OF INDIA : PROVIDED THAT THE CONDITION IN THIS CLAUSE SHALL, IN RELATIO N TO A SMALL SCALE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING OR AN INDUS TRIAL UNDERTAKING REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (4) SHALL APPLY AS IF TH E WORDS NOT BEING ANY ARTICLE OR THING SPECIFIED IN THE LIST IN THE ELEVE NTH SCHEDULE HAD BEEN OMITTED. EXPLANATION 1. FOR THE PURPOSES OF CLAUSE ( II ), ANY MACHINERY OR PLANT WHICH WAS USED OUTSIDE INDIA BY ANY PERSON OTHER THAN THE ASSESSEE SHALL NOT BE REGARDED AS MACHINER Y OR PLANT PREVIOUSLY USED FOR ANY PURPOSE, IF THE FOLLOWING C ONDITIONS ARE FULFILLED, NAMELY : ( A ) SUCH MACHINERY OR PLANT WAS NOT, AT ANY TIME PREV IOUS TO THE DATE OF THE INSTALLATION BY THE ASSESSEE, USED IN INDIA; ( B ) SUCH MACHINERY OR PLANT IS IMPORTED INTO INDIA FR OM ANY COUNTRY OUTSIDE INDIA; AND ( C ) NO DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION IN RESPEC T OF SUCH MACHINERY OR PLANT HAS BEEN ALLOWED OR IS ALLOWABLE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOM E OF ANY PERSON FOR ANY PERIOD PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE INSTALLATION OF THE MACHINERY OR PLANT BY THE ASSESSEE. EXPLANATION 2. WHERE IN THE CASE OF AN INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING, ANY MACHINERY OR PLANT OR ANY PART THE REOF PREVIOUSLY USED FOR ANY PURPOSE IS TRANSFERRED TO A NEW BUSINE SS AND THE TOTAL VALUE OF THE MACHINERY OR PLANT OR PART SO TRANSFER RED DOES NOT EXCEED TWENTY PER CENT OF THE TOTAL VALUE OF THE MACHINERY OR PLANT USED IN THE BUSINESS, THEN, FOR THE PURPOSES OF CLAUSE ( II ) OF THIS SUB-SECTION, THE CONDITION SPECIFIED THEREIN SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN COMPLIED WITH; ( IV ) IN A CASE WHERE THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING MANUFA CTURES OR PRODUCES ARTICLES OR THINGS, THE UNDERTAKING EMPLOY S TEN OR MORE WORKERS IN A MANUFACTURING PROCESS CARRIED ON WITH THE AID OF POWER, OR EMPLOYS TWENTY OR MORE WORKERS IN A MANUFACTURIN G PROCESS CARRIED ON WITHOUT THE AID OF POWER. (3) THE AMOUNT OF DEDUCTION IN THE CASE OF AN INDUS TRIAL UNDERTAKING SHALL BE TWENTY-FIVE PER CENT (OR THIRTY PER CENT W HERE THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY), OF THE PROFITS AND GAINS DERIVED FROM SUC H INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING FOR A PERIOD OF TEN CONSECUTIVE ASSESSM ENT YEARS (OR TWELVE CONSECUTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS WHERE THE ASSES SEE IS A CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETY) BEGINNING WITH THE INITIAL ASSES SMENT YEAR SUBJECT TO THE FULFILMENT OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS, NAMELY : ( I ) IT BEGINS TO MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCE, ARTICLES OR THINGS OR TO OPERATE SUCH PLANT OR PLANTS AT ANY TIME DURING THE PERIOD BEGINNING 6 FROM THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 1991 AND ENDING ON THE 3 1ST DAY OF MARCH, 1995 OR SUCH FURTHER PERIOD AS THE CENTRAL GOVERNME NT MAY, BY NOTIFICATION IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE, SPECIFY WITH REFERENCE TO ANY PARTICULAR UNDERTAKING; ( II ) WHERE IT IS AN INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING BEING A SMA LL SCALE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING, IT BEGINS TO MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCE ARTICLES OR THINGS OR TO OPERATE ITS COLD STORAGE PLANT [NOT SP ECIFIED IN SUB-SECTION (4) OR SUB-SECTION (5)] AT ANY TIME DURING THE PERI OD BEGINNING ON THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 1995 AND ENDING ON THE 31ST DAY O F MARCH, 83 [2002]. 84 (4) THE AMOUNT OF DEDUCTION IN THE CASE OF AN INDUS TRIAL UNDERTAKING IN AN INDUSTRIALLY BACKWARD STATE SPECIFIED IN THE EIGHTH SCHEDULE SHALL BE HUNDRED PER CENT OF THE PROFITS AND GAINS DERIVE D FROM SUCH INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING FOR FIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS BE GINNING WITH THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR AND THEREAFTER TWENTY-FIVE PER CENT (OR THIRTY PER CENT WHERE THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY) OF THE PROFIT S AND GAINS DERIVED FROM SUCH INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING : PROVIDED THAT THE TOTAL PERIOD OF DEDUCTION DOES NOT EXCEED TEN CONSECUTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS (OR TWELVE CONSECUTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS WHERE THE ASSESSEE IS A CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY) SUBJE CT TO FULFILMENT OF THE CONDITION THAT IT BEGINS TO MANUFACTURE OR PROD UCE ARTICLES OR THINGS OR TO OPERATE ITS COLD STORAGE PLANT OR PLANTS DURI NG THE PERIOD BEGINNING ON THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 1993 AND ENDING ON THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH, 85 [2004] : PROVIDED FURTHER THAT IN THE CASE OF SUCH INDUSTRIES IN THE NORTH- EASTERN REGION, AS MAY BE NOTIFIED 86 BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT, THE AMOUNT OF DEDUCTION SHALL BE HUNDRED PER CENT OF PR OFITS AND GAINS FOR A PERIOD OF TEN ASSESSMENT YEARS, AND THE TOTAL PER IOD OF DEDUCTION SHALL IN SUCH A CASE NOT EXCEED TEN ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 87 [ PROVIDED ALSO THAT NO DEDUCTION UNDER THIS SUB-SECTION SHALL BE ALLOWED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR BEGINNING ON THE 1S T DAY OF APRIL, 2004 OR ANY SUBSEQUENT YEAR TO ANY UNDERTAKING OR E NTERPRISE REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 80-IC :] 88 [ PROVIDED ALSO THAT IN THE CASE OF AN INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING IN TH E STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR, THE PROVISIONS OF THE F IRST PROVISO SHALL HAVE EFFECT AS IF FOR THE FIGURES, LETTERS AND WORD S 31ST DAY OF MARCH, 2004, THE FIGURES, LETTERS AND WORDS 31ST DAY OF MARCH, 89 [2012] HAD BEEN SUBSTITUTED : PROVIDED ALSO THAT NO DEDUCTION UNDER THIS SUB-SECTION SHALL BE ALLOWED TO AN INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING IN THE STATE O F JAMMU AND KASHMIR WHICH IS ENGAGED IN THE MANUFACTURE OR PROD UCTION OF ANY ARTICLE OR THING SPECIFIED IN PART C OF THE THIRTEE NTH SCHEDULE.] (5) THE AMOUNT OF DEDUCTION IN THE CASE OF AN INDUS TRIAL UNDERTAKING LOCATED IN SUCH INDUSTRIALLY BACKWARD DISTRICTS AS THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT MAY, HAVING REGARD TO THE PRESCRIBED GUI DELINES 90 , BY NOTIFICATION 91 IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE, SPECIFY IN THIS BEHALF AS INDUSTRIALLY BACKWARD DISTRICT OF CATEGORY A OR A N INDUSTRIALLY BACKWARD DISTRICT OF CATEGORY B SHALL BE, 7 ( I ) HUNDRED PER CENT OF THE PROFITS AND GAINS DERIVED FROM AN INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING LOCATED IN A BACKWARD DISTRI CT OF CATEGORY A FOR FIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS BEGINNING WITH THE INITIA L ASSESSMENT YEAR AND THEREAFTER, TWENTY-FIVE PER CENT (OR THIRTY PER CENT WHERE THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY) OF THE PROFITS AND GAINS OF AN INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING : PROVIDED THAT THE TOTAL PERIOD OF DEDUCTION SHALL NOT EXCEED TEN CONSECUTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS OR WHERE THE ASSES SEE IS A CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETY, TWELVE CONSECUTIVE ASSESSMENT YE ARS : PROVIDED FURTHER THAT THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING BEGINS TO MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCE ARTICLES OR THINGS OR TO OPE RATE ITS COLD STORAGE PLANT OR PLANTS AT ANY TIME DURING THE PERIOD BEGIN NING ON THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 1994 AND ENDING ON THE 31ST DAY OF MARC H, 92-94 [2004]; ( II ) HUNDRED PER CENT OF THE PROFITS AND GAINS DERIVED FROM AN INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING LOCATED IN A BACKWARD DISTRI CT OF CATEGORY B FOR THREE ASSESSMENT YEARS BEGINNING WITH THE INITI AL ASSESSMENT YEAR AND THEREAFTER, TWENTY-FIVE PER CENT (OR THIRTY PER CENT WHERE THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY) OF THE PROFITS AND GAINS OF AN INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING : PROVIDED THAT THE TOTAL PERIOD OF DEDUCTION DOES NOT EXCEED EIGHT CONSECUTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS (OR WHERE THE AS SESSEE IS A CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETY, TWELVE CONSECUTIVE ASSESSMENT YE ARS) : PROVIDED FURTHER THAT THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING BEGINS TO MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCE ARTICLES OR THINGS OR TO OPE RATE ITS COLD STORAGE PLANT OR PLANTS AT ANY TIME DURING THE PERIOD BEGIN NING ON THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 1994 AND ENDING ON THE 31ST DAY OF MARC H, 92-94 [2004]. (6) THE AMOUNT OF DEDUCTION IN THE CASE OF THE BUSI NESS OF A SHIP SHALL BE THIRTY PER CENT OF THE PROFITS AND GAINS DERIVED FROM SUCH SHIP FOR A PERIOD OF TEN CONSECUTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS INCLUDIN G THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR PROVIDED THAT THE SHIP ( I ) IS OWNED BY AN INDIAN COMPANY AND IS WHOLLY USED FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY IT; ( II ) WAS NOT, PREVIOUS TO THE DATE OF ITS ACQUISITION BY THE INDIAN COMPANY, OWNED OR USED IN INDIAN TERRITORIAL WATERS BY A PERSON RESIDENT IN INDIA; AND ( III ) IS BROUGHT INTO USE BY THE INDIAN COMPANY AT ANY TIME DURING THE PERIOD BEGINNING ON THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL , 1991 AND ENDING ON THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH, 1995. (7) THE AMOUNT OF DEDUCTION IN THE CASE OF ANY HOTE L SHALL BE ( A ) FIFTY PER CENT OF THE PROFITS AND GAINS DERIVED F ROM THE BUSINESS OF SUCH HOTEL FOR A PERIOD OF TEN CONSECUT IVE YEARS BEGINNING FROM THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR AS IS LOCATED IN A HILLY AREA OR A RURAL AREA OR A PLACE OF PILGRIMAGE OR SUCH OTHER PLACE A S THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT MAY, HAVING REGARD TO THE NEED FOR DEVEL OPMENT OF INFRASTRUCTURE FOR TOURISM IN ANY PLACE AND OTHER R ELEVANT 8 CONSIDERATIONS, SPECIFY BY NOTIFICATION IN THE OFFI CIAL GAZETTE AND SUCH HOTEL STARTS FUNCTIONING AT ANY TIME DURING THE PER IOD BEGINNING ON THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 1990 AND ENDING ON THE 31ST DAY O F MARCH, 1994 OR BEGINNING ON THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 1997 AND ENDING ON THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH, 2001: PROVIDED THAT NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS CLAUSE SHALL APPLY TO A HOTEL LOCATED AT A PLACE WITHIN THE MUNICIPAL JURISDICTION (WHETHER KNOWN AS A MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, NOT IFIED AREA COMMITTEE OR A CANTONMENT BOARD OR BY ANY OTHER NAM E) OF CALCUTTA, CHENNAI, DELHI OR MUMBAI, WHICH HAS STARTED OR STAR TS FUNCTIONING ON OR AFTER THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 1997 AND BEFORE THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH, 2001: PROVIDED FURTHER THAT THE SAID HOTEL IS APPROVED BY THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS CLAUSE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES 95 MADE UNDER THIS ACT AND WHERE THE SAID HOTEL IS APP ROVED BY THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY BEFORE THE 31ST DAY OF MAR CH, 1992, SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY THE PRESCRIBED AUTH ORITY FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS SECTION IN RELATION TO THE ASSESSME NT YEAR COMMENCING ON THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 1991; ( B ) THIRTY PER CENT OF THE PROFITS AND GAINS DERIVED FROM THE BUSINESS OF SUCH HOTEL AS IS LOCATED IN ANY PLACE O THER THAN THOSE MENTIONED IN SUB-CLAUSE ( A ) FOR A PERIOD OF TEN CONSECUTIVE YEARS BEGINNING FROM THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR IF SUCH HOTEL HAS STARTED OR STARTS FUNCTIONING AT ANY TIME DURING THE PERIOD BE GINNING ON THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 1991 AND ENDING ON THE 31ST DAY OF MA RCH, 1995 OR BEGINNING ON THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 1997 AND ENDING ON THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH, 2001: PROVIDED THAT NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS CLAUSE SHALL APPLY TO A HOTEL LOCATED AT A PLACE WITHIN THE MUNICIPAL JURISDICTION (WHETHER KNOWN AS A MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, NOT IFIED AREA COMMITTEE, TOWN AREA COMMITTEE OR A CANTONMENT BOAR D OR BY ANY OTHER NAME) OF CALCUTTA, CHENNAI, DELHI OR MUMBAI, WHICH HAS STARTED OR STARTS FUNCTIONING ON OR AFTER THE 1ST DAY OF AP RIL, 1997 AND BEFORE THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH, 2001; ( C ) THE DEDUCTION UNDER CLAUSE ( A ) OR CLAUSE ( B ) SHALL BE AVAILABLE ONLY IF ( I ) THE BUSINESS OF THE HOTEL IS NOT FORMED BY THE SP LITTING UP, OR THE RECONSTRUCTION, OF A BUSINESS ALREADY IN EXISTENCE OR BY THE TRANSFER TO A NEW BUSINESS OF A BUILDING PREVIOUSLY USED AS A HOT EL OR OF ANY MACHINERY OR PLANT PREVIOUSLY USED FOR ANY PURPOSE; ( II ) THE BUSINESS OF THE HOTEL IS OWNED AND CARRIED ON BY A COMPANY REGISTERED IN INDIA WITH A PAID-UP CAPITAL OF NOT L ESS THAN FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND RUPEES; ( III )THE HOTEL IS FOR THE TIME BEING APPROVED BY THE PR ESCRIBED AUTHO- RITY 95 : 9 PROVIDED THAT ANY HOTEL APPROVED BY THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY 95 BEFORE THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 1999 SHALL BE DEEMED T O HAVE BEEN APPROVED UNDER THIS SUB-SECTION. 96 [(7A) THE AMOUNT OF DEDUCTION IN THE CASE OF ANY MU LTIPLEX THEATRE SHALL BE ( A ) FIFTY PER CENT OF THE PROFITS AND GAINS DERIVED, FROM THE BUSINESS OF BUILDING, OWNING AND OPERATING A MULTIP LEX THEATRE, FOR A PERIOD OF FIVE CONSECUTIVE YEARS BEGINNING FROM THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR IN ANY PLACE : PROVIDED THAT NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS CLAUSE SHALL APPLY TO A MULTIPLEX THEATRE LOCATED AT A PLACE WITHIN TH E MUNICIPAL JURISDICTION (WHETHER KNOWN AS A MUNICIPALITY, MUNI CIPAL CORPORATION, NOTIFIED AREA COMMITTEE OR A CANTONMENT BOARD OR BY ANY OTHER NAME) OF CHENNAI, DELHI, MUMBAI OR KOLKATA; ( B ) THE DEDUCTION UNDER CLAUSE ( A ) SHALL BE ALLOWABLE ONLY IF ( I ) SUCH MULTIPLEX THEATRE IS CONSTRUCTED AT ANY TIM E DURING THE PERIOD BEGINNING ON THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2002 AND ENDING ON THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH, 2005; ( II ) THE BUSINESS OF THE MULTIPLEX THEATRE IS NOT FOR MED BY THE SPLITTING UP, OR THE RECONSTRUCTION, OF A BUSINESS ALREADY IN EXISTENCE OR BY THE TRANSFER TO A NEW BUSINESS OF ANY BUILDING OR OF AN Y MACHINERY OR OF PLANT PREVIOUSLY USED FOR ANY PURPOSE; ( III ) THE ASSESSEE FURNISHES ALONGWITH THE RETURN OF I NCOME, THE REPORT OF AN AUDIT IN SUCH FORM AND CONTAINING SUCH PARTICULARS AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED 97 AND DULY SIGNED AND VERIFIED BY AN ACCOUNTANT, AS DEFINED IN THE EXPLANATION BELOW SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 288 , CERTIFYING THAT THE DEDUCTION HAS BEEN CORRECTLY CL AIMED. (7B) THE AMOUNT OF DEDUCTION IN THE CASE OF ANY CON VENTION CENTRE SHALL BE ( A ) FIFTY PER CENT OF THE PROFITS AND GAINS DERIVED, BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE BUSINESS OF BUILDING, OWNING AND OPERATING A CONVENTION CENTRE, FOR A PERIOD OF FIVE CONSECUTIVE YEARS BEGINNING FROM THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR; ( B ) THE DEDUCTION UNDER CLAUSE ( A ) SHALL BE ALLOWABLE ONLY IF ( I ) SUCH CONVENTION CENTRE IS CONSTRUCTED AT ANY TIM E DURING THE PERIOD BEGINNING ON THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2002 AND ENDING ON THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH, 2005; ( II ) THE BUSINESS OF THE CONVENTION CENTRE IS NOT FOR MED BY THE SPLITTING UP, OR THE RECONSTRUCTION, OF A BUSINESS ALREADY IN EXISTENCE OR BY THE TRANSFER TO A NEW BUSINESS OF ANY BUILDING OR OF AN Y MACHINERY OR PLANT PREVIOUSLY USED FOR ANY PURPOSE; ( III ) THE ASSESSEE FURNISHES ALONGWITH THE RETURN OF I NCOME, THE REPORT OF AN AUDIT IN SUCH FORM AND CONTAINING SUCH PARTICULARS AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED 98 , AND DULY SIGNED AND VERIFIED BY AN ACCOUNTANT, AS 10 DEFINED IN THE EXPLANATION BELOW SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 288 , CERTIFYING THAT THE DEDUCTION HAS BEEN CORRECTLY CL AIMED.] (8) THE AMOUNT OF DEDUCTION IN THE CASE OF ANY COMP ANY CARRYING ON SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE HUNDRE D PER CENT OF THE PROFITS AND GAINS OF SUCH BUSINESS FOR A PERIOD OF FIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS BEGINNING FROM THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR IF SUCH COMPANY ( A ) IS REGISTERED IN INDIA; ( B ) HAS THE MAIN OBJECT OF SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT; ( C ) IS FOR THE TIME BEING APPROVED BY THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY 99 AT ANY TIME BEFORE THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 1999. 1 [(8A) THE AMOUNT OF DEDUCTION IN THE CASE OF ANY CO MPANY CARRYING ON SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE HUN DRED PER CENT OF THE PROFITS AND GAINS OF SUCH BUSINESS FOR A PERIOD OF TEN CONSECUTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS, BEGINNING FROM THE INITIAL ASSESS MENT YEAR, IF SUCH COMPANY ( I ) IS REGISTERED IN INDIA; ( II ) HAS ITS MAIN OBJECT THE SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT; ( III ) IS FOR THE TIME BEING APPROVED BY THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY 2 AT ANY TIME AFTER THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH, 2000 BUT B EFORE THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 3 [2007]; ( IV ) FULFILS SUCH OTHER CONDITIONS AS MAY BE PRESCRIBE D 4 .] 5 [ (9) THE AMOUNT OF DEDUCTION TO AN UNDERTAKING SHALL BE HUNDRED PER CENT OF THE PROFITS FOR A PERIOD OF SEVEN CONSECUTI VE ASSESSMENT YEARS, INCLUDING THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR, IF SUCH UNDE RTAKING FULFILS ANY OF THE FOLLOWING, NAMELY: ( I ) IS LOCATED IN NORTH-EASTERN REGION AND HAS BEGUN OR BEGINS COMMERCIAL PRODUCTION OF MINERAL OIL BEFORE THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 1997; ( II ) IS LOCATED IN ANY PART OF INDIA AND HAS BEGUN OR BEGINS COMMERCIAL PRODUCTION OF MINERAL OIL ON OR AFTER TH E 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 1997; ( III ) IS ENGAGED IN REFINING OF MINERAL OIL AND BEGINS SUCH REFINING ON OR AFTER THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 1998 5A [ BUT NOT LATER THAN THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH, 2012 ] . THE FOLLOWING CLAUSES (IV) AND (V) SHALL BE INSER TED AFTER CLAUSE (III) OF SUB-SECTION (9) OF SECTION 80-IB BY THE FINANCE (NO. 2) ACT, 2009, W.E.F. 1-4-2010: ( IV ) IS ENGAGED IN COMMERCIAL PRODUCTION OF NATURAL GA S IN BLOCKS LICENSED UNDER THE VIII ROUND OF BIDDING FOR AWARD OF EXPLORATION CONTRACTS (HEREAFTER REFERRED TO AS NE LP-VIII) UNDER THE NEW EXPLORATION LICENCING POLICY ANNOUNCED BY T HE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA VIDE RESOLUTION NO. O-19018/22/95-ONG.DO.VL, DATED 10TH 11 FEBRUARY, 1999 AND BEGINS COMMERCIAL PRODUCTION OF NATURAL GAS ON OR AFTER THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2009; ( V ) IS ENGAGED IN COMMERCIAL PRODUCTION OF NATURAL GA S IN BLOCKS LICENSED UNDER THE IV ROUND OF BIDDING FOR A WARD OF EXPLORATION CONTRACTS FOR COAL BED METHANE BLOCKS A ND BEGINS COMMERCIAL PRODUCTION OF NATURAL GAS ON OR AFTER TH E 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2009. EXPLANATION. FOR THE PURPOSES OF CLAIMING DEDUCTION UNDER THIS SUB- SECTION, ALL BLOCKS LICENSED UNDER A SINGLE CONTRAC T, WHICH HAS BEEN AWARDED UNDER THE NEW EXPLORATION LICENCING POLICY ANNOUNCED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA VIDE RESOLUTION NO. O-19018/22/95- ONG.DO.VL, DATED 10TH FEBRUARY, 1999 OR HAS BEEN AW ARDED IN PURSUANCE OF ANY LAW FOR THE TIME BEING IN FORCE OR HAS BEEN AWARDED BY CENTRAL OR A STATE GOVERNMENT IN ANY OTHER MANNE R, SHALL BE TREATED AS A SINGLE UNDERTAKING . ] 6 [(10) THE AMOUNT OF DEDUCTION IN THE CASE OF AN UND ERTAKING DEVELOPING AND BUILDING HOUSING PROJECTS APPROVED B EFORE THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH, 6A [ 2008 ] BY A LOCAL AUTHORITY SHALL BE HUNDRED PER CENT OF THE PROFITS DERIVED IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO AN Y ASSESSMENT YEAR FROM SUCH HOUSING PROJECT IF, ( A ) SUCH UNDERTAKING HAS COMMENCED OR COMMENCES DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSING PROJECT ON OR AFTER THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 1998 AND COMPLETES SUCH CONSTRUCTIO N, ( I ) IN A CASE WHERE A HOUSING PROJECT HAS BEEN APPROV ED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY BEFORE THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2004, ON OR BEFORE THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH, 2008; ( II ) IN A CASE WHERE A HOUSING PROJECT HAS BEEN, OR, I S APPROVED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY ON OR AFTER THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2 004, WITHIN FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE HOU SING PROJECT IS APPROVED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY. EXPLANATION. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CLAUSE, ( I ) IN A CASE WHERE THE APPROVAL IN RESPECT OF THE HO USING PROJECT IS OBTAINED MORE THAN ONCE, SUCH HOUSING PROJECT SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN APPROVED ON THE DATE ON WHICH THE BUILDING PLA N OF SUCH HOUSING PROJECT IS FIRST APPROVED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY; ( II ) THE DATE OF COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOU SING PROJECT SHALL BE TAKEN TO BE THE DATE ON WHICH THE COMPLETION CER TIFICATE IN RESPECT OF SUCH HOUSING PROJECT IS ISSUED BY THE LOCAL AUTH ORITY; ( B ) THE PROJECT IS ON THE SIZE OF A PLOT OF LAND WHIC H HAS A MINIMUM AREA OF ONE ACRE: PROVIDED THAT NOTHING CONTAINED IN CLAUSE ( A ) OR CLAUSE ( B ) SHALL APPLY TO A HOUSING PROJECT CARRIED OUT IN ACC ORDANCE WITH A SCHEME FRAMED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OR A STATE GOVERNMENT FOR RECONSTRUCTION OR REDEVELOPMENT OF EXISTING BUILDIN GS IN AREAS DECLARED 12 TO BE SLUM AREAS UNDER ANY LAW FOR THE TIME BEING I N FORCE AND SUCH SCHEME IS NOTIFIED BY THE BOARD IN THIS BEHALF; ( C ) THE RESIDENTIAL UNIT HAS A MAXIMUM BUILT-UP AREA OF ONE THOUSAND SQUARE FEET WHERE SUCH RESIDENTIAL UNIT IS SITUATED WITHIN THE CITY OF DELHI OR MUMBAI OR WITHIN TWENTY-FIVE KILOM ETRES FROM THE MUNICIPAL LIMITS OF THESE CITIES AND ONE THOUSAND A ND FIVE HUNDRED SQUARE FEET AT ANY OTHER PLACE; 6B [ AND ] ( D ) THE BUILT-UP AREA OF THE SHOPS AND OTHER COMMERCI AL ESTABLISHMENTS INCLUDED IN THE HOUSING PROJECT DOES NOT EXCEED FIVE PER CENT OF THE AGGREGATE BUILT-UP AREA OF THE HOUSING PROJECT OR TWO THOUSAND SQUARE FEET, WHICHEVER IS LESS.] THE FOLLOWING CLAUSES (E) AND (F) SHALL BE INSERT ED AFTER CLAUSE (D) OF SUB-SECTION (10) OF SECTION 80-IB BY THE FINANCE (NO. 2) ACT, 2009, W.E.F. 1-4-2010 : ( E ) NOT MORE THAN ONE RESIDENTIAL UNIT IN THE HOUSING PROJECT IS ALLOTTED TO ANY PERSON NOT BEING AN INDIVIDUAL; AND ( F ) IN A CASE WHERE A RESIDENTIAL UNIT IN THE HOUSING PROJECT IS ALLOTTED TO A PERSON BEING AN INDIVIDUAL, NO OTHER RESIDENTIAL UNIT IN SUCH HOUSING PROJECT IS ALLOTTED TO ANY OF THE FOLL OWING PERSONS, NAMELY: ( I ) THE INDIVIDUAL OR THE SPOUSE OR THE MINOR CHILDRE N OF SUCH INDIVIDUAL, ( II ) THE HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY IN WHICH SUCH INDIVIDU AL IS THE KARTA, ( III )ANY PERSON REPRESENTING SUCH INDIVIDUAL, THE SPOUS E OR THE MINOR CHILDREN OF SUCH INDIVIDUAL OR THE HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY IN WHICH SUCH INDIVIDUAL IS THE KARTA. 6C [ EXPLANATION. FOR THE REMOVAL OF DOUBTS, IT IS HEREBY DECLARED T HAT NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS SUB-SECTION SHALL APPLY T O ANY UNDERTAKING WHICH EXECUTES THE HOUSING PROJECT AS A WORKS CONTR ACT AWARDED BY ANY PERSON (INCLUDING THE CENTRAL OR STATE GOVERNME NT). ] (11) NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN CLAUSE ( III ) OF SUB-SECTION (2) AND SUB-SECTIONS (3), (4) AND (5), THE AMOUNT O F DEDUCTION IN A CASE OF INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING DERIVING PROFIT FROM THE BUSINESS OF SETTING UP AND OPERATING A COLD CHAIN FACILITY FOR AGRICULTURA L PRODUCE, SHALL BE HUNDRED PER CENT OF THE PROFITS AND GAINS DERIVED F ROM SUCH INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING FOR FIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS BEGINNING WIT H THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR AND THEREAFTER, TWENTY-FIVE PER CEN T (OR THIRTY PER CENT WHERE THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY) OF THE PROFITS AND GAINS DERIVED FROM THE OPERATION OF SUCH FACILITY IN A MANNER THAT THE TOTAL PERIOD OF DEDUCTION DOES NOT EXCEED TEN CONSECUTIVE ASSESSMEN T YEARS (OR TWELVE CONSECUTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS WHERE THE ASSESSEE IS A CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY) AND SUBJECT TO FULFILMENT OF THE CONDITION THAT IT BEGINS TO OPERATE SUCH FACILITY ON OR AFTER THE 1ST DAY OF AP RIL, 1999 BUT BEFORE THE 7 [1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2004]. 13 8 [(11A) THE AMOUNT OF DEDUCTION IN A CASE OF 9 [AN UNDERTAKING DERIVING PROFIT FROM THE BUSINESS OF PROCESSING, PR ESERVATION AND PACKAGING OF FRUITS OR VEGETABLES OR 9A [ MEAT AND MEAT PRODUCTS OR POULTRY OR MARINE OR DAIRY PRODUCTS OR ] FROM] THE INTEGRATED BUSINESS OF HANDLING, STORAGE AND TRANSPORTATION OF FOODGRAI NS, SHALL BE HUNDRED PER CENT OF THE PROFITS AND GAINS DERIVED FROM SUCH UNDERTAKING FOR FIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS BEGINNING WITH THE INITIAL ASSESSM ENT YEAR AND THEREAFTER, TWENTY-FIVE PER CENT (OR THIRTY PER CEN T WHERE THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY) OF THE PROFITS AND GAINS DERIVED FROM TH E OPERATION OF SUCH BUSINESS IN A MANNER THAT THE TOTAL PERIOD OF DEDUC TION DOES NOT EXCEED TEN CONSECUTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS AND SUBJECT TO FUL FILMENT OF THE CONDITION THAT IT BEGINS TO OPERATE SUCH BUSINESS O N OR AFTER THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2001.] THE FOLLOWING PROVISO SHALL BE INSERTED AFTER SUB-S ECTION (11A) OF SECTION 80-IB BY THE FINANCE (NO. 2) ACT, 2009, W.E .F. 1-4-2010 : PROVIDED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION SHALL NOT APPLY TO AN UNDERTAKING ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PROCESSING, PRESERVATION AND PACKAGING OF MEAT OR MEAT PRODUCTS OR POULTRY OR MA RINE OR DAIRY PRODUCTS IF IT BEGINS TO OPERATE SUCH BUSINESS BEFO RE THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2009. 10 [(11B) THE AMOUNT OF DEDUCTION IN THE CASE OF AN UN DERTAKING DERIVING PROFITS FROM THE BUSINESS OF OPERATING AND MAINTAINING A HOSPITAL IN A RURAL AREA SHALL BE HUNDRED PER CENT OF THE PROFITS AND GAINS OF SUCH BUSINESS FOR A PERIOD OF FIVE CONSECU TIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS, BEGINNING WITH THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR, IF ( I ) SUCH HOSPITAL IS CONSTRUCTED AT ANY TIME DURING T HE PERIOD BEGINNING ON THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2004 AND ENDIN G ON THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH, 2008; ( II ) THE HOSPITAL HAS AT LEAST ONE HUNDRED BEDS FOR PA TIENTS; ( III ) THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOSPITAL IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REGULATIONS, FOR THE TIME BEING IN FORCE, OF THE LO CAL AUTHORITY; AND ( IV ) THE ASSESSEE FURNISHES ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF I NCOME, THE REPORT OF AUDIT IN SUCH FORM AND CONTAINING SUCH PA RTICULARS AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED 11 , AND DULY SIGNED AND VERIFIED BY AN ACCOUNTANT, AS DEFINED IN THE EXPLANATION BELOW SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 288 , CERTIFYING THAT THE DEDUCTION HAS BEEN CORRECTLY CLAIMED. EXPLANATION. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SUB-SECTION, A HOSPITAL S HALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN CONSTRUCTED ON THE DATE ON WHIC H A COMPLETION CERTIFICATE IN RESPECT OF SUCH CONSTRUCTION IS ISSU ED BY THE CONCERNED LOCAL AUTHORITY.] 12 [ (11C) THE AMOUNT OF DEDUCTION IN THE CASE OF AN UND ERTAKING DERIVING PROFITS FROM THE BUSINESS OF OPERATING AND MAINTAINING A HOSPITAL LOCATED ANYWHERE IN INDIA, OTHER THAN THE EXCLUDED AREA, SHALL BE HUNDRED PER CENT OF THE PROFITS AND GAINS DERIVE D FROM SUCH BUSINESS FOR A PERIOD OF FIVE CONSECUTIVE ASSESSMEN T YEARS, BEGINNING WITH THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR, IF 14 ( I ) THE HOSPITAL IS CONSTRUCTED AND HAS STARTED OR ST ARTS FUNCTIONING AT ANY TIME DURING THE PERIOD BEGINNING ON THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2008 AND ENDING ON THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH, 20 13; ( II ) THE HOSPITAL HAS AT LEAST ONE HUNDRED BEDS FOR PA TIENTS; ( III ) THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOSPITAL IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REGULATIONS OR BYE-LAWS OF THE LOCAL AUTHORITY; AND ( IV ) THE ASSESSEE FURNISHES ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF I NCOME, A REPORT OF AUDIT IN SUCH FORM AND CONTAINING SUCH PA RTICULARS, AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED 12A , AND DULY SIGNED AND VERIFIED BY AN ACCOUNTANT, AS DEFINED IN THE EXPLANATION TO SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 288, CERTIFYING THAT THE DEDUCTION HAS BEEN CORRECTLY CLAIMED. EXPLANATION. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SUB-SECTION ( A ) A HOSPITAL SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN CONSTRUCT ED ON THE DATE ON WHICH A COMPLETION CERTIFICATE IN RESPECT O F SUCH CONSTRUCTION IS ISSUED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY CONCERNED; ( B ) INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR MEANS THE ASSESSMENT YE AR RELEVANT TO THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE BUSINESS OF THE HOSPITAL STARTS FUNCTIONING; ( C ) EXCLUDED AREA SHALL MEAN AN AREA COMPRISING ( I ) GREATER MUMBAI URBAN AGGLOMERATION; ( II ) DELHI URBAN AGGLOMERATION; ( III )KOLKATA URBAN AGGLOMERATION; ( IV ) CHENNAI URBAN AGGLOMERATION; ( V ) HYDERABAD URBAN AGGLOMERATION; ( VI ) BANGALORE URBAN AGGLOMERATION; ( VII ) AHMEDABAD URBAN AGGLOMERATION; ( VIII ) DISTRICT OF FARIDABAD; ( IX ) DISTRICT OF GURGAON; ( X ) DISTRICT OF GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR; ( XI ) DISTRICT OF GHAZIABAD; ( XII ) DISTRICT OF GANDHINAGAR; AND ( XIII ) CITY OF SECUNDERABAD; ( D ) THE AREA COMPRISING AN URBAN AGGLOMERATION SHALL BE THE AREA INCLUDED IN SUCH URBAN AGGLOMERATION ON THE BA SIS OF THE 2001 CENSUS .] (12) WHERE ANY UNDERTAKING OF AN INDIAN COMPANY WHI CH IS ENTITLED TO THE DEDUCTION UNDER THIS SECTION IS TRANSFERRED, BE FORE THE EXPIRY OF THE PERIOD SPECIFIED IN THIS SECTION, TO ANOTHER INDIAN COMPANY IN A SCHEME OF AMALGAMATION OR DEMERGER 15 ( A ) NO DEDUCTION SHALL BE ADMISSIBLE UNDER THIS SECTI ON TO THE AMALGAMATING OR THE DEMERGED COMPANY FOR THE PREVIO US YEAR IN WHICH THE AMALGAMATION OR THE DEMERGER TAKES PLACE; AND ( B ) THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION SHALL, AS FAR AS M AY BE, APPLY TO THE AMALGAMATED OR THE RESULTING COMPANY AS THEY WOULD HAVE APPLIED TO THE AMALGAMATING OR THE DEMERGED COMPANY IF THE AMALGAMATION OR DEMERGER HAD NOT TAKEN PLACE. (13) THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SUB-SECTION (5) AN D SUB-SECTIONS (7) TO (12) OF SECTION 80-IA SHALL, SO FAR AS MAY BE, APPLY TO THE ELIGIBLE BUSINESS UNDER THIS SECTION 13 . (14) FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, 14 [( A ) BUILT-UP AREA MEANS THE INNER MEASUREMENTS OF T HE RESIDENTIAL UNIT AT THE FLOOR LEVEL, INCLUDING THE PROJECTIONS AND BALCONIES, AS INCREASED BY THE THICKNESS OF THE WAL LS BUT DOES NOT INCLUDE THE COMMON AREAS SHARED WITH OTHER RESIDENT IAL UNITS;] 15 [( AA )]COLD CHAIN FACILITY MEANS A CHAIN OF FACILITIES FOR STORAGE OR TRANSPORTATION OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE UNDER SCI ENTIFICALLY CONTROLLED CONDITIONS INCLUDING REFRIGERATION AND OTHER FACILI TIES NECESSARY FOR THE PRESERVATION OF SUCH PRODUCE; 16 [ 17 [( AB )] CONVENTION CENTRE MEANS A BUILDING OF A PRESCRIBED AREA COMPRISING OF CONVENTION HALLS TO B E USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF HOLDING CONFERENCES AND SEMINARS, BEING OF SUCH SIZE AND NUMBER AND HAVING SUCH OTHER FACILITIES AND AMENITI ES, AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED 18 ;] ( B ) HILLY AREA MEANS ANY AREA LOCATED AT A HEIGHT O F ONE THOUSAND METRES OR MORE ABOVE THE SEA LEVEL; ( C ) INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR ( I ) IN THE CASE OF AN INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING OR COLD STORAGE PLANT OR SHIP OR HOTEL, MEANS THE ASSESSMENT YEAR RELEVANT TO THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING BEGINS TO MANUFACT URE OR PRODUCE ARTICLES OR THINGS, OR TO OPERATE ITS COLD STORAGE PLANT OR PLANTS OR THE COLD CHAIN FACILITY OR THE SHIP IS FIRST BROUGHT IN TO USE OR THE BUSINESS OF THE HOTEL STARTS FUNCTIONING; ( II ) IN THE CASE OF A COMPANY CARRYING ON SCIENTIFIC A ND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, MEANS THE ASSESSMENT YEAR RELEVANT TO THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE COMPANY IS APPROVED BY T HE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY FOR THE PURPOSES OF SUB-SECTION (8); ( III )IN THE CASE OF AN UNDERTAKING ENGAGED IN THE BUSIN ESS OF COMMERCIAL PRODUCTION OR REFINING OF MINERAL OIL RE FERRED TO IN SUB- SECTION (9), MEANS THE ASSESSMENT YEAR RELEVANT TO THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE UNDERTAKING COMMENCES THE COMMERCIAL PROD UCTION OR REFINING OF MINERAL OIL; 19 [( IV ) IN THE CASE OF AN UNDERTAKING ENGAGED 20 [IN THE BUSINESS OF PROCESSING, PRESERVATION AND PACKAGING OF FRUITS OR VEGETABLES OR] IN THE INTEGRATED BUSINESS OF HANDLING, STORAGE AND TR ANSPORTATION OF 16 FOODGRAINS, MEANS THE ASSESSMENT YEAR RELEVANT TO T HE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE UNDERTAKING BEGINS SUCH BUSINESS;] 21 [( V ) IN THE CASE OF A MULTIPLEX THEATRE, MEANS THE AS SESSMENT YEAR RELEVANT TO THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH A CINEM A HALL, BEING A PART OF THE SAID MULTIPLEX THEATRE, STARTS OPERATING ON A COMMERCIAL BASIS; ( VI ) IN THE CASE OF A CONVENTION CENTRE, MEANS THE AS SESSMENT YEAR RELEVANT TO THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE CON VENTION CENTRE STARTS OPERATING ON A COMMERCIAL BASIS;] 22 [( VII ) IN THE CASE OF AN UNDERTAKING ENGAGED IN OPERATIN G AND MAINTAINING A HOSPITAL IN A RURAL AREA, MEANS THE A SSESSMENT YEAR RELEVANT TO THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE UNDERTAK ING BEGINS TO PROVIDE MEDICAL SERVICES;] ( D ) NORTH-EASTERN REGION MEANS THE REGION COMPRISIN G THE STATES OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH, ASSAM, MANIPUR, MEGHAL AYA, MIZORAM, NAGALAND, SIKKIM AND TRIPURA; 23 [( DA ) MULTIPLEX THEATRE MEANS A BUILDING OF A PRESCRI BED AREA, COMPRISING OF TWO OR MORE CINEMA THEATRES AND COMME RCIAL SHOPS OF SUCH SIZE AND NUMBER AND HAVING SUCH OTHER FACILITI ES AND AMENITIES AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED 24 ;] ( E ) PLACE OF PILGRIMAGE MEANS A PLACE WHERE ANY TEM PLE, MOSQUE, GURDWARA, CHURCH OR OTHER PLACE OF PUBLIC W ORSHIP OF RENOWN THROUGHOUT ANY STATE OR STATES IS SITUATED; ( F ) RURAL AREA MEANS ANY AREA OTHER THAN ( I ) AN AREA WHICH IS COMPRISED WITHIN THE JURISDICTIO N OF A MUNICIPALITY (WHETHER KNOWN AS A MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL CORPORA TION, NOTIFIED AREA COMMITTEE, TOWN AREA COMMITTEE OR BY ANY OTHER NAME ) OR A CANTONMENT BOARD AND WHICH HAS A POPULATION OF NOT LESS THAN TEN THOUSAND ACCORDING TO THE PRECEDING CENSUS OF WHICH RELEVANT FIGURES HAVE BEEN PUBLISHED BEFORE THE FIRST DAY OF THE PRE VIOUS YEAR; OR ( II ) AN AREA WITHIN SUCH DISTANCE NOT BEING MORE THAN FIFTEEN KILOMETRES FROM THE LOCAL LIMITS OF ANY MUNICIPALITY OR CANTON MENT BOARD REFERRED TO IN SUB-CLAUSE ( I ), AS THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT MAY, HAVING REGARD TO THE STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT OF SUCH AREA INCLUDING THE EXTENT OF, AND SCOPE FOR, URBANISATION OF SUCH AREA AND OTHER RELE VANT CONSIDERATIONS SPECIFY IN THIS BEHALF BY NOTIFICATION IN THE OFFIC IAL GAZETTE 25 ; ( G ) SMALL-SCALE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING MEANS AN IND USTRIAL UNDERTAKING WHICH IS, AS ON THE LAST DAY OF THE PRE VIOUS YEAR, REGARDED AS A SMALL-SCALE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING UNDER SECTI ON 11B 26 OF THE INDUSTRIES (DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATION) ACT, 1951 ( 65 OF 1951).] 17 IF THE AFORESAID PROVISION OF THE ACT IS ANALYSED, IT SPEAKS ABOUT DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF PROFIT AND GAINS FROM CERTA IN INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING OTHER THAN INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT U NDERTAKING. SUB-SECTION (I) OF SECTION 80-IB SPEAKS ABOUT GROSS TOTAL INCOME (INCLUDING ANY PROFIT AND GAINS) DERIVED FR OM SUCH ELIGIBLE BUSINESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH AND SUBJECT TO PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION. SUB-SECTION (II) SPEAKS ABOUT FULF ILMENT OF ALL THE CONDITIONS ENUMERATED THEREIN TO SUCH INDUSTRIA L UNDERTAKING. SUB-SECTION (III) SPEAKS ABOUT THE PER CENTAGE OF DEDUCTION OF SUCH INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING AND THE PR OFIT AND GAINS DERIVED FROM SUCH INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING FOR THE SPECIFIED PERIOD. IF THE LANGUAGE USED IN SECTION 80-IB IS KE PT IN JUXTAPOSITION WITH THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT APPEAL AND THE SOURCE OF INCOME THEN IT CAN BE SAID THAT SO FAR AS RECOVERY OF EXCESS CASH IS CONCERNED, IT WAS EXPLAINED BY THE A SSESSEE THAT THIS CASH WAS GENERATED OUT OF INDUSTRIAL UNDE RTAKING OF THE ASSESSEE. SO FAR AS INTEREST INCOME IS CONCERNED, I T WAS ALSO NOT EXPLAINED AS TO BE GENERATED FROM INDUSTRIAL UN DERTAKING. EVEN OTHERWISE, INTEREST INCOME CANNOT BE CLAIMED T O BE FROM 18 INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING. SO FAR AS INCOME FROM WEIGH BRIDGE IS CONCERNED, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE WE IGHBRIDGE IS PART AND PARTIAL OF SUCH INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING. WE ARE NOT AGREEING WITH THIS SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE BECAU SE THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN SEPARATE RECEIPTS FROM WEIGHING BUSINESS AND THE SAME CANNOT BE PART OF INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKI NG. IF FOR ARGUMENT SAKE, THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE IS CONSIDER ED TO BE CORRECT THEN THERE WAS NO NECESSITY TO CHARGE FROM WEIGHMENT IF IT IS FOR THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHARGED SEPARATELY FROM WEIGHMENT (FROM WEIGHBR IDGE), THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE TREATED TO BE INCOME GENERA TED FROM GINNING BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE THE INCOME SHOULD BE DERIVED FROM THE GINNING BUSINESS OF ASSESSEE/ INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING. EVEN OTHERWISE, IT CAN BE SAID THAT T HE INCOME WHICH HAS BEEN DERIVED FROM THE BUSINESS OF GINNI NG AND PRESSING OF COTTON CAN ONLY BE CONSIDERED FOR DEDUC TION U/S 80- IB OF THE ACT AND THE INCOME WHICH HAS BEEN EITHER ACQUIRED OUT OF INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES ARE FROM DIF FERENT BUSINESS CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO BE CLAIMED AS DEDUCTI ON U/S 80- 19 IB OF THE ACT. THE ONUS IS CLEARLY ON THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THAT THE IMPUGNED INCOME WAS ACTUALLY DERIVED FROM THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING. 4. NOW, LET US EXAMINE THE ISSUE WITH THE HELP OF J UDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS, SOME OF WHICH WERE RELIED UPON BY T HE ASSESSEE. SO FAR AS THE DECISION FROM HON'BLE JURIS DICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PARAS OIL EXTRACTION LTD. (SUPRA) IS CONCERNED, IT GOES AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE IN THAT CASE, IT WAS CLEARLY HELD THAT THE ACTIVITIES NOT INCIDEN TAL TO ACTIVITIES OF INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE INCO ME THEREFROM ARE NOT ALLOWABLE DEDUCTION U/S 80-I OF T HE ACT. THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT FURTHER CLEARLY HELD THAT THE IN COME FROM WEIGHMENT CHARGES AND INTEREST RECEIPT, INCLUDED IN MISCELLANEOUS RECEIPTS ARE ALSO NOT ENTITLED TO DED UCTION. IN THE CASE OF NATIONAL LEGGUARD WORKS (SUPRA), THE DISPUT E BEFORE THE HON'BLE P & H HIGH COURT WAS FOR SPECIAL DEDUCT ION U/S 80HHC BUT CLEARLY HELD THAT THE AMOUNT SURRENDERED DURING SURVEY, THE BURDEN IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THAT IT REPRESENTED EXPORT PROFIT AND SINCE THE BURDEN WAS NOT 20 DISCHARGED, IT WAS CLEARLY HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE I S NOT ENTITLED TO SPECIAL DEDUCTION. IN THE CASE OF ADVANCE DETERG ENT LTD. (SUPRA), THE ASSESSEE DISCHARGED HIS ONUS BY PROVIN G THAT THE INTEREST RECEIVED FROM LATE PAYMENTS/OVERDUE PAYMEN TS FROM THE CUSTOMERS IS TO BE CONSIDERED AS PROFIT AND GAI NS DERIVED FROM INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S 80-IA OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, IN THE PRESENT APPEAL, NO SUCH NE XUS HAS BEEN PROVED BY THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, THIS JUDICI AL PRONOUNCEMENT FROM HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT MAY NOT HELP THE ASSESSEE. THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF LIB ERTY INDIA (SUPRA), THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CLEARLY HELD THAT FOR COMPUTING PROFIT FROM THE RECEIPTS FROM DEPB/DUTY DRAWBACK, THESE PROFITS DO NOT FORM PART OF NET PROFIT AS SUCH RECEIPTS DO NOT FORM PAR T OF ELIGIBLE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEDUCTION U/S 80-I, 80- IA, AND 80-IB OF THE ACT. THIS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEME NT FROM HONBLE APEX COURT RATHER SUPPORTS THE REVENUE. SO FAR AS THE DECISION FROM HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF JAGDISH PRASAD M. JOSHI (SUPRA) IS CONCERNED, WE FI ND THAT 21 HON'BLE HIGH COURT AFFIRMED THE FINDING OF THE TRIB UNAL IN RESPECT OF SECTION 80-IA. IN THE CASE OF ELTEK SGS P. LTD. (SUPRA), THE HON'BLE COURT WAS CONSIDERING FOR SPEC IAL DEDUCTION U/S 80-IB AND DIFFERENCE OF LANGUAGE USED BETWEEN SECTIONS 80-HH & 80-IB. 5. WE ARE AWARE THAT IN THE TAXING STATUTE, GRANTIN G INCENTIVES FOR PROMOTING AND DEVELOPMENT, SHOULD BE CONSTRUED LIBERALLY BUT AT THE SAME TIME, NO VIOLENCE IS PERM ITTED TO THE LANGUAGE USED BY THE LEGISLATURE UNLESS AND UNTIL I T RESULTS INTO ABSURDITY AND GOES AGAINST THE INTENTION OF THE LEG ISLATURE. THE WORD DERIVED FROM CANNOT HAVE A WIDE IMPORT SO AS TO INCLUDE ANY INCOME WHICH IS NOT GENERATED FROM THE ELIGIBLE BUSINESS AND IS NOT DIRECTLY CONNECTED WITH SUCH ELIGIBLE BU SINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. OUR VIEW IS SUPPORTED BY THE DECISIONS FR OM CIT VS. COCHIN REFINERIES LTD. (135 ITR 278) (KER), CIT VS. CEMENT DISTRIBUTORS LTD. (208 ITR 355) (DEL). ADMITTEDLY, GINNING OF COTTON IS A PROCESS OF MANUFACTURING, THEREFORE, TH E INCOME DERIVED FROM SUCH ELIGIBLE BUSINESS HAS TO BE ALL OWED AS DEDUCTION U/S 80-IB OF THE ACT BUT THE NEXUS OF INC OME HAS TO 22 BE EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. FOR EXAMPLE, SECTION 80-IB SHOULD NOT BE STRETCHED TO THE LIMIT WHERE THE INCO ME DERIVED FROM INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING, IF REINVESTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN A NON-INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING PURPOSE, THEREFORE, SUCH INCOME FROM NON-INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING CANNOT BE TREATED A S INCOME DERIVED FROM AN INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING MERELY BEC AUSE ORIGINAL NUCLEUS FUNDS, WHICH WERE REINVESTED, YIEL DED INTEREST. THE INCOME SHOULD BE DIRECTLY GENERATED FROM/DERIVE D FROM THE ELIGIBLE BUSINESS OF INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING. ADMITT EDLY, THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF GINNING AND PRESSING OF COTTON AND NOT IN THE BUSINESS OF BANKING AND FINANCING, T HEREFORE, THE INTEREST INCOME, IF ANY, RECEIVED FROM LENDING OF F UNDS HAS TO BE ASSESSED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. SECTION 57 O F THE ACT CLEARLY SPECIFIES THE AVAILABILITY OF DEDUCTION FOR WORKING OUT INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. SUB-SECTION (III) OF SEC TION 57 SPECIFIES ABOUT INCURRING EXPENDITURE FOR EARNING T HE INCOME AND ITS ALLOWABILITY. IF THE ASSESSEE BORROWS THE F UNDS FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS HENCE INTEREST PAID THEREON CAN NOT BE ALLOWED OR ADJUSTED AGAINST INTEREST INCOME. THE HO NBLE APEX 23 COURT IN THE CASE OF PANDIAN CHEMICALS LTD. VS. CIT (262 ITR 278) ON THE ISSUE OF SPECIAL DEDUCTION WHEREIN DEPO SITS WERE MADE WITH ELECTRICITY BOARD FOR SUPPLY OF ELECTRICI TY AND ON THE INTEREST FROM SUCH DEPOSITS CLEARLY HELD THAT IT IS NOT DERIVED FROM THE BUSINESS OF UNDERTAKING. IDENTICAL RATIO WAS LAID DOWN IN CAMBAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. VS. C IT (113 ITR 84) (SC) AND CIT VS. ALPINE SOLVEX LTD. (276 ITR 92 ) (MP). THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT WHILE COMING TO A PARTICULAR CONCLUSION FOLLOWED THE DECISIONS PRONOUNCED IN STE RLING FOODS VS. CIT (150 ITR 292) (KAR) AND OWN DECISION IN PAR AS OIL EXTRACTION LTD. (230 ITR 266). THE HONBLE COURT AL SO FOLLOWED FOLLOWING DECISIONS: 1. COCHIN CO. VS. CIT (1978) 114 ITR 822 (KER); 2. HINDUSTAN LEVER LTD. VS. CIT (1980) 121 ITR 951 (BOM); 3. NORTH EAST GASES P. LTD. VS. CIT (1996) 220 ITR 372 (GAUHATI); 4. ORISSA TYRES LTD. VS. CIT (1991) 188 ITR 342 (OR I); 5. CIT VS. BIHAR ALLOY STEELS LTD. (1994) 206 ITR 3 50 (PAT); 6. GODAVARI SUGAR MILLS LTD. (NO.2) VS. CIT (1991) 191 ITR 359 (BOM); AND 7. COCHIN REFINERIES LTD. (1985) 154 ITR 345 (KER). THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF LIBERTY INDIA (SUPRA) DELIBERATED UPON THE MEANING OF DERIVED FROM. SUB -SECTION 24 (V) OF SECTION 80-IB CLEARLY SPEAKS ABOUT NOTWITHST ANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN ANY OTHER PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT, THE PROFIT AND GAINS OF AN ELIGIBLE BUSINESS TO WHICH THE PR OVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION (I) APPLIES, FOR THE PURPOSES OF DETERM INING THE QUANTUM OF DEDUCTION THEN THE SOURCE OF THE ELIGIBL E BUSINESS HAS TO BE CONSIDERED. THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN LIB ERTY INDIA (SUPRA) WHILE COMING TO A PARTICULAR CONCLUSION AFF IRMED THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: 1. LIBERTY INDIA VS. CIT (2007) 293 ITR 520 (P & H) ; 2. CIT VS. LAKHWINDER SINGH (2009) 317 ITR 209 (P & H); 3. CIT VS. RITESH INDUSTRIES LTD. (2005) 274 ITR 32 4 (DEL); AND 4. SHAKTI FOOTWEAR VS. CIT (NO.2) (2009) 317 ITR 199 ( MAD) . THE HONBLE APEX COURT WHILE ARRIVING AT TO A PARTI CULAR CONCLUSION ALSO CONSIDERED FOLLOWING JUDICIAL PRONO UNCEMENTS: 1. CIT VS. KIRLOSKAR OIL ENGINES LTD. (1986) 157 IT R 762 (BOM); 2. CIT VS. INDIA GELATINE & CHEMICALS LTD. (2005) 2 75 ITR 284 (GUJ); 3. CIT VS. LAKHWINDER SINGH (2009) 317 ITR 209 (P & H); 4. CIT VS. RITESH INDUSTRIES LTD. (2005) 274 ITR 32 4 (DEL); 5. CIT VS. STERLING FOODS (1999) 237 ITR 579 (SC); 6. LIBERTY INDIA VS. CIT (2007) 293 ITR 520 (P & H) ; 7. PANDIAN CHEMICALS LTD. VS. CIT (2003) 262 ITR 27 8 (SC); AND 8. SHAKTI FOOTWEAR VS. CIT (NO.2) (2009) 317 ITR 199 ( MAD) . IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, IT CAN BE SAID THAT MAJORITY OF THE DECISIONS, RELIED UPON BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSES SEE, ALONG 25 WITH OTHERS HAVE DULY BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE HONBL E APEX COURT AND ULTIMATELY, REACHED TO A PARTICULAR CONCL USION. IF THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS DISCUSSED HEREINABOVE ARE K EPT IN JUXTAPOSITION WITH THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT APPEAL, ONE CLEAR FACT IS OOZING OUT THAT NO EVIDENCE WAS EITHER FOUND DUR ING SURVEY OR EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH COULD ESTABLISH THAT THE SURRENDERED INCOME WAS EARNED FROM INDUSTRIAL UNDER TAKING. THERE IS A UNCONTROVERTED FINDING IN THE IMPUGNED O RDER THAT NO PURCHASE BILLS, SALE BILLS, GINNING CHARGES BILLS, PRESSING CHARGES BILLS WERE FOUND DURING SURVEY OPERATION WH ICH REMAINED TO BE RECORDED IN REGULAR COURSE OF BUSINE SS OF INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING, THEREFORE, THERE IS NO BASI S FOR CLAIMING THE SURRENDERED INCOME TO BE GENERATED FROM/DERIVED FROM THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING. THERE IS FURTHER FINDING TH AT NO ENTRY TAX, SALES-TAX, OTHER TAXES WERE FOUND PAID BY THE ASSES SEE ON SUCH UNRECORDED TRANSACTIONS, THEREFORE, THE ONUS IS CLE ARLY ON THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM WHICH HAS NOT BE EN DISCHARGED. THE ALTERNATE PLEA RAISED THROUGH GROUN D NO.3 IS ALSO IS WITHOUT ANY BASIS, CONSEQUENTLY, THIS GROUN D IS ALSO 26 DISMISSED. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS AND JUDICIAL PRON OUNCEMENTS, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE STAND OF THE LD. CIT(A) . THE SAME IS AFFIRMED. FINALLY, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25 TH SEPTEMBER, 2011. SD SD (R.C.SHARMA) (JOGINDER SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 15.9.2011 COPY TO: APPELLANT, RESPONDENT, CIT, CIT(A), DR, GU ARD FILE !VYS!