IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No.543 of 2008 Date of decision: 5.12.2008 The Commissioner of Income tax I, Ludhiana -----appellant Vs. M/s Impel forge and Allied Industries Limited, Ludhiana --Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.N.MITTAL Present: Mr. Rajesh Sethi, Sr. Standing Counsel for the revenue. Adarsh Kumar Goel,J. 1. The revenue has preferred this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench ‘B’, Chandigarh passed in ITA No.316/CHANDI/2005 dated 18.10.2007, for the assessment year 2001-02, proposing to raise following substantial question of law:- “Whether on the facts and in law, the Hon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that deduction under section 80IB is permissible on income ITA No.543 of 2008 derived from processing activities as processing activities do not constitute manufacture of a product?” 2. The assessee is engaged in manufacturing and trading of tractor and auto parts and also doing job work of similar nature. It claimed deduction under section 80IB of the Act and income from job work, which was partly allowed by the Assessing Officer. On appeal, the CIT(A) upheld the plea of the assessee, which has been affirmed by the Tribunal. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the revenue. 4. Only contention raised on behalf of the revenue is that the assessee may be entitled to deduction under section 80IB of the Act in respect of income derived from its own manufacturing but the said deduction was not admissible for the job work done for others. 5. Reference to section 80IB of the Act shows that only requirement for its applicability is deriving of income from business referred to in sub sections 3 to 11, 11A and 11B of the Act, apart from other conditions with which we are not concerned. It is not the case of the revenue that the business of the assessee does not fall under sub sections 3 to 11, 11A or 11B of the Act. The assessee is at liberty to do manufacture for itself or for others, which makes no difference for purposes of Section 80IB of the 2 ITA No.543 of 2008 Act. The Tribunal has also relied upon similar view taken by Delhi High Court in CIT v. Northern Aeromatics Limited, (2005) 196 CTR (Delhi) 479. 6. Since the view taken by the Tribunal is clearly supported by bare language of the Statute, we are unable to hold that any substantial question of law arises. 7. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge December 5, 2008 (L.N.Mittal) ‘gs’ Judge 3