JUDGMENT : K.S. Jhaveri, J. 1. Since the common question of law and facts arises in all these appeals, all these appeals are being heard and decided together by this common oral judgment. 2. Tax Appeal No.1249 of 2007 challenges the order dated 22/12/2006 made by the ITAT in ITA No. 1406/Ahd./1999 and came to be admitted on the following question of law: "Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming the order passed by the CIT (A) deleting the addition of Rs. 67,27,920/- made by the Assessing Officer by rejecting the book result of the assessee and estimating sale and G.P.?" 3. Tax Appeal No. 1250 of 2007 and Tax Appeal No. 1253 of 2007 challenge the order dated 22/12/2016 made by the ITAT in ITA No.1147/Ahd./1999 and ITA No.902/Ahd./1997 respectively and came to be admitted on the following questions of law: "Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of the claim of the assessee u/s. 80IA made by the Assessing Officer on the ground that: [a] the assessee was manufacturing article which was specified in the list of Xith Schedule (section 80IA(2)(iii); [b] the assessee had employed less than 10 workers in the manufacturing process which was carried out with the aid of payment; and [c] the investment in plant and machinery had exceeded the permissible limit of Rs. 60 lacs?" 4. Tax Appeal No. 1251 of 2007 challenges the order dated 22/12/2006 made by the ITAT No. ITA No. 963/Ahd./1997 and came to be admitted on the following question of law: "Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming the order passed by the CIT (A) deleting the disallowance of Rs. 4,88,687/- made u/s. 40A(2)(b) being paid by the assessee to the Excise Department on behalf of its sister concern?" 5. Tax Appeal No. 1252 of 2007 challenges order dated 22/12/2006 made by the ITAT in ITA No. 4518/Ahd./1995 and came to be admitted on the following question of law: "Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming the order passed by the CIT (A) deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer u/s. 80IA on the ground that the aggregate value of plant and machinery exceeded Rs. 60 lacs and that the undertaking did not employ the prescribed number of workers?" 6. 60 lacs and that the undertaking did not employ the prescribed number of workers?" 6. Insofar as the question raised in Tax Appeal No. 1249 of 2007 is concerned, it is a matter of record that the assessee did maintain all the Registers, verification of which had duly been made by the A.O. The books of accounts of the assessee were periodically checked by the revenue authorities. It appears that in the subsequent year i.e. in assessment year 1995-96, the same G.P. rate has been accepted by the Department. It is a fact that the cost of raw materials has increased. It is also seen that 100% goods are sold to its sister concern and therefore the question of GP does not arise. The A.O. could not find that the assessee had sold finished goods at a lesser price to its sister concern. In our opinion, low profits and absence of regular stock register are not sufficient reasons for rejection of the accounts of assessee. Hence, the CIT (A) and Tribunal were justified in deleting the addition. Both the authorities below have considered the materials placed before them and we see no reason to interfere with the same. Accordingly, we answer the issue raised in Tax Appeal No. 1249 of 2007 in favour of the assessee and against the Department. 7. Now, insofar as, the questions raised in Tax Appeal No. 1250 of 2007 and Tax Appeal No. 1253 of 2007 are concerned, in paragraph No. 14 of its judgment, the Tribunal has observed as under: "14. Now coming to the second aspect that workers engaged by labour contractors are to be counted while counting number of workers. The answer is in affirmative and it is supported by the decision of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Prithviraj Bhoorachand (supra) wherein their Lordships have observed as under:- "As can be seen, the term employed by the statute is, "employs" twenty or more workers. The plain dictionary meaning of the said term 'employ' is to use the services of a person in return for payment. Clause (iv) of s. 80I(2) of the Act does not contemplate the additional requirements - which have been read into the same by the CIT. The plain dictionary meaning of the said term 'employ' is to use the services of a person in return for payment. Clause (iv) of s. 80I(2) of the Act does not contemplate the additional requirements - which have been read into the same by the CIT. As long as the industrial undertaking manufacturers articles or things; and where the manufacturing process is carried on without the aid of power, it employs twenty or more workers, the requirements of the provision are fulfilled. When the provision is clear and unambiguous, there is no need to read anything more into the same, as is sought to be done by the Revenue. This Court in the case of CIT v. V.B. Narania & Co., 171 CTR (Guj) 416 : 252 ITR 884 (Guj), where in the facts of the said case, the ITO has disallowed the claim for deduction under Ss. 80HH and 80J of the Act, on the ground that the assessee got certain processes done from outsiders on the piecemeal basis and that the assessee had not provided regular employment to any person in its manufacturing process, held that the Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that the persons doing the work were employed by the assessee because the assessee was controlling not only the work to be done by those persons but also the manner of doing of the work. The Court further held that the Assessing Officer and the AAC were not right in holding that the concerned persons were not employees because they were being paid on piece-rate basis or job work basis. In the present case, the Tribunal has found that the assessee has the ultimate control over the affairs of the establishment and that the industrial undertaking of the assessee was employing more than 20 workers through the contractor. Applying the principles laid down by the aforesaid decision to the facts of the present case it cannot be said that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the assessee is employing 20 workers in its industrial undertaking as contemplated by the provisions of cl. (iv) of sub-s.(2) of s. 80-I of the Act." There is no dispute to the extent that if number of workers employed by labour contractors is included then the number of workers employed by see is sufficient for fulfillment of the condition laid down in this regard. (iv) of sub-s.(2) of s. 80-I of the Act." There is no dispute to the extent that if number of workers employed by labour contractors is included then the number of workers employed by see is sufficient for fulfillment of the condition laid down in this regard. In our view of the situation, we hold that assessee has fulfilled the requirement of minimum number workers employed in the manufacturing process for the purpose of eligibility of deduction under section 80IA. The grant of depreciation on the items excluded by CIT (A) from plant and machinery become irrelevant in view of the decision of Hon. Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Prabhudas Kishordas Tobacco Products (P) Ltd. (supra) as depreciation on the relevant asset has to be allowed as per provisions of IT Act irrespective of the fact that what constitute "plant and machinery" for the purpose of determining whether a unit is small scale industrial undertaking eligible for deduction under section 80IA. Thus there is no force in the said contention of Revenue that it has been wrongly held by CIT (A) that the excluded items are eligible for depreciation at different rate. In view of above discussion, grounds No. 4 & 5 are allowed for statistical purposes." 7.1 In above view of the matter, when the issue was discussed at length by the Tribunal, this Court is in complete agreement with the said findings. The Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion by considering the material placed before it. Accordingly, we answer the issue raised in Tax Appeal No. 1250 of 2007 and Tax Appeal No. 1253 of 2007 in favour of the assessee and against the Department. 8. So far as Tax Appeal No. 1252 of 2007 where the question of deleting the dis-allowance made by the AO under Section 80IA on the ground that the aggregate value of plant and machinery exceed Rs. 60 Lacs and that the undertaking did not employ the prescribed number of workers is posed for our consideration. The Tribunal has also discussed this aspect in its order more particularly paragraph No. 12 and 13 and last portion of paragraph No. 13 is very relevant which reads thus: "13. ...Looking to the issue from above point of view it has to be held that cars, trucks, dead stock, pumps, etc. The Tribunal has also discussed this aspect in its order more particularly paragraph No. 12 and 13 and last portion of paragraph No. 13 is very relevant which reads thus: "13. ...Looking to the issue from above point of view it has to be held that cars, trucks, dead stock, pumps, etc. cannot be said to be plant and machinery for the purpose of determining cost of project for treating the assessee as small scale industrial concern. However, here the claim of assessee is that such plant and machinery is Rs. 45,30,678/- and not Rs. 59,52,720/-. In this view of the situation, we consider it just and proper to restore this issue to the file of Assessing Officer for limited purpose of computing the value of plant and machinery of assessee's undertaking as per aforementioned decision of Hon. Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Prabhudas Kishordas Tobacco Products (P) Ltd. (supra). We direct accordingly. Needless to observe that Assessing Officer will give reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee." 8.1 In above view of the matter, we are in complete agreement with the aforesaid view taken by the Tribunal, which has come to the conclusion by considering the material placed before it. Accordingly, we answer the issue raised in Tax Appeal No. 1252 of 2007 in favour of the assessee and against the Department. 9. So far as Tax Appeal No. 1251 of 2007, where the Tribunal has confirmed the order passed by the CIT (A) deleting the disallowance of Rs. 4,88,687/- made u/s. 40A(2)(b) being paid by the assessee to the Excise Department on behalf of its sister concern. The Tribunal has rightly considered this issue in paragraph No. 25 which reads thus: "25. We have carefully considered the rival submissions in the light of material placed before us. The assessee company exclusively marketed its product through its sister concerns namely Babul Marketing and Babul Agencies. Accordingly assessee company collected excise duty and paid the same to the Central Excise Department as against the collected dues from these parties. The excess payment of Rs. 4,88,687/- was made. The assessee route collection and payment of excise duty through its trading and profit and account. Accordingly assessee company collected excise duty and paid the same to the Central Excise Department as against the collected dues from these parties. The excess payment of Rs. 4,88,687/- was made. The assessee route collection and payment of excise duty through its trading and profit and account. In this view of the situation, we find that there is no infirmity in the decision of CIT (A) vide which such disallowance has been deleted as the present addition is not falling within the ambit of section 40(A)(2)(b). We uphold his order. Ground raised by revenue is dismissed." 9.1 Accordingly, we answer the issue raised in Tax Appeal No. 1252 of 2007 in favour of the assessee and against the Department. 10. Hence, all these appeals are accordingly dismissed by giving answer in favour of the assessee and against the Department.