1999 (9) TMI 58 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of section 80-I of the Income-tax Act 1961 regarding deduction eligibility for an industrial undertaking.
2. Determining whether the assessee is engaged in manufacturing activities or construction activities for claiming the deduction.
3. Analysis of the definition of "production" and "manufacture" in the context of the case.
4. Application of legal principles to ascertain if the assessee qualifies as an industrial undertaking.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an application for reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act 1961, where the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal referred a question to the High Court regarding the eligibility of the assessee, a partnership firm engaged in pile foundation work, for deduction under section 80-I of the Act. The Tribunal had held that the assessee was not entitled to deduction from construction activities but could claim it for profits derived from manufacturing frames, doors, windows, etc. The Revenue contended that the assessee did not qualify as an industrial undertaking engaged in manufacturing activities. The court emphasized the distinction between "production" and "manufacture," noting that while every manufacture can be considered production, the reverse is not always true. The judgment highlighted that the term "article" should be interpreted in its commercial context, and activities like construction of buildings do not fall under manufacturing or production processes.

The court referred to the decision in Commissioner of Income-tax vs N. C. Budharaja and Co. [1993] 204 ITR 412 to support its stance that pile foundation work does not involve manufacturing or production processes. The Tribunal's observation that the assessee used frames, doors, windows, and concrete slabs in construction further reinforced this position. Consequently, the court answered the question in favor of the Revenue, indicating that the assessee was not entitled to the deduction under section 80-I for profits from construction activities. As a result, the court did not delve into the first part of the question, ultimately disposing of the reference accordingly.