2001 (8) TMI 61 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment involves determining whether the assessee is entitled to deduction u/s 80-1 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for retreading of tyres, and whether retreading amounts to production of a new article or thing.

Issue 1: Deduction under section 80-1
The Revenue challenged the deduction granted to the assessee under section 80-1, contending that retreading does not involve manufacture or production of a new article. The Commissioner of Income-tax directed the withdrawal of the relief granted, leading to an appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal.

Issue 2: Manufacturing process of retreading
The Tribunal held that the assessee's process of retreading was akin to manufacture, resulting in the production of a new commodity different from the old castings. The debate centered on whether retreading constitutes manufacturing under section 80-1 of the Act.

Issue 3: Interpretation of manufacturing and production
The court analyzed the meaning of "manufacture" and "production" in the context of retreading tyres. Reference was made to legal precedents and definitions to determine whether retreading qualifies as the production of a new article or thing.

Judgment Summary:
The court deliberated on the interpretation of "manufacture" and "production" in the context of retreading tyres. The Revenue argued that retreading merely replaces the tread and does not result in the production of a new article. Conversely, the assessee contended that retreading transforms a worn-out tyre into a new commodity suitable for sale. The court examined the provisions of section 80-1 of the Act and relevant legal precedents to determine the nature of the retreading process.

The court referred to legal precedents such as Addl. CIT v. Kalsi Tyre P. Ltd. and CIT v. N. C. Budharaja and Co. to assess whether retreading qualifies as manufacturing or production. It was emphasized that while every manufacture can be characterized as production, every production need not amount to manufacture. The court concluded that retreading, while resulting in a usable commodity, does not constitute the manufacture or production of a new article. The definition of manufacture in Explanation (iii) to section 10A of the Act was deemed inapplicable to the case.

In light of the analysis, the court answered the questions posed in the negative, ruling against the assessee's entitlement to deduction under section 80-1.