2004 (12) TMI 66 - HC - Income Tax

Whether the operations carried out by the assessee namely of lamination, punching and pasting with glue for the purpose of making cartons is a manufacturing process as contemplated under section 80-IB of the Income-tax Act, 1961? - Assessing Officer held that the assessee was not engaged in any manufacturing operations so as to claim the deduction. - We have no doubt in our mind that the Tribunal has considered the nature of operations carried out by the assessee and by relying upon the three decisions of the Supreme Court, reached a conclusion that the assessee was carrying out a manufacturing process for making the laminated cartons. The reasoning given by the Tribunal cannot be faulted, as it does not suffer from any errors. The Tribunal has rightly discarded the view taken by the Assessing Officer

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of manufacturing process under section 80-IB of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Detailed Analysis:
The appeal before the High Court of Bombay arose from an order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Panaji, regarding the classification of operations carried out by the assessee for making cartons as a manufacturing process under section 80-IB of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The primary question raised was whether the activities of lamination, punching, and pasting with glue, conducted by the assessee, qualified as a manufacturing process as per the provisions of the Income-tax Act.

The Assessing Officer, in the initial assessment order under section 158BC of the Act, held that the assessee was not engaged in manufacturing operations eligible for deduction under section 80-IB. The officer based this decision on the premise that although the operations involved treatment, labor, and manipulation, they did not result in the emergence of a new substance with a distinct name, character, or use, which is essential for a process to be classified as manufacturing.

However, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal disagreed with the Assessing Officer's reasoning and referred to various legal precedents, including decisions of the Supreme Court, to support its conclusion. The Tribunal highlighted that the activities of the assessee, involving the transformation of raw material into printed, laminated, and waxed cartons, aligned with the criteria set in the legal precedents cited. It emphasized that the finished products, such as printed paperboard containers and cartons, underwent significant changes in characteristics and use through the manufacturing process.

The Tribunal's analysis focused on the nature of operations carried out by the assessee and concluded that the activities indeed constituted a manufacturing process for producing laminated cartons. By referencing established legal principles and case law, the Tribunal rejected the Assessing Officer's view and upheld the assessee's claim for deduction under section 80-IB of the Income-tax Act.

Ultimately, the High Court of Bombay upheld the Tribunal's decision, affirming that the reasoning provided was sound and free from errors. The Court concurred with the conclusion that the assessee's operations qualified as a manufacturing process, thereby dismissing the appeal against the Tribunal's order and affirming the eligibility of the assessee for the deduction under section 80-IB of the Income-tax Act, 1961.