9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Appeal by Revenue against Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) order related to assessment year 1998-99. - Dispute over deduction under section 80-IA of Rs. 38,47,731 to the assessee. - Assessing Officer's contention that the assessee was not engaged in manufacturing activity as per section 80-IA. - Interpretation of the term "manufacture" in the context of the business activities of the assessee. Detailed Analysis: The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai involved the Revenue challenging the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) related to the assessment year 1998-99. The primary dispute centered around the deduction under section 80-IA of Rs. 38,47,731 claimed by the assessee. The Revenue contended that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in allowing this deduction, arguing that the assessee was not engaged in manufacturing activity as required by the said section. The Assessing Officer had initially rejected the assessee's claim for deduction under section 80-IA, asserting that the business activity of the assessee-firm did not amount to manufacturing activity as envisaged under the relevant section. The Assessing Officer based this decision on various case laws, including precedents such as CST v. Paper Process Works and CCE v. Bakelite Hylam Ltd., which emphasized the need for a transformation resulting in a new and distinct article for an activity to be classified as manufacturing. In contrast, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) accepted the plea of the assessee, acknowledging that the process undertaken by the assessee resulted in the creation of a new commercial product with a distinct name, character, and use. The Commissioner allowed the appeal of the assessee, leading to the Revenue's appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. During the proceedings, the Departmental Representative argued that the end-product of the assessee was not different from the original product used, thereby contending that the business activity did not constitute manufacturing. On the other hand, the counsel for the assessee highlighted the provisions of section 80-IA(2) and argued that the continuous stationery produced by the assessee underwent various processes, resulting in a commercially different product from the raw materials used. The Appellate Tribunal, after considering the arguments and relevant judgments, including those of the Supreme Court, emphasized the commercial understanding of the term "manufacture." The Tribunal held that the continuous computer stationery produced by the assessee qualified as a commercially distinct commodity from the raw materials used, meeting the criteria of a new and different product as recognized in commercial circles. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the finding of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), ruling that the activity in which the assessee firm was engaged amounted to manufacturing as required under section 80-I-A. Consequently, the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed, affirming the decision in favor of the assessee.
|
