9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether the petitioner is an industrial undertaking within the meaning of section 10(15)(iv)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The petitioner, a Medical Diagnostic Centre, sought a declaration that it qualifies as an industrial undertaking under the Income-tax Act, 1961. The petitioner purchased a nuclear magnetic resonance scanner and claimed exemption from income tax on the interest paid for the purchase. The Government rejected the claim, stating that the petitioner, being a medical diagnostic centre, did not engage in processing goods for sale but used films for diagnostic purposes. A previous writ application on the same issue was dismissed, but the petitioner was allowed to file a fresh application with amendments. The petitioner argued that processing films for diagnosis constituted processing goods and cited various judgments. The Revenue contended that the exemption was rightly denied as the petitioner's activities did not amount to processing goods for sale. The court noted that the previous judgment had already determined that the diagnostic centre did not qualify as an industrial undertaking. The court found that the petitioner's activities did not meet the criteria for processing goods as per the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court also distinguished previous judgments involving processing goods for sale, emphasizing that the petitioner's use of films was for diagnosis, not for market preparation. Ultimately, the court dismissed the writ application, upholding the decision that the petitioner was not an industrial undertaking eligible for the tax exemption. In analyzing the case, the court referred to a previous judgment by Ajoy Nath Ray J., which had concluded that the diagnostic centre did not qualify as an industrial undertaking. The court agreed with this finding, emphasizing that the purpose of the tax relief provision was not to benefit professional services but to aid manufacturing or processing of goods for sale. The court highlighted that the films processed by the petitioner were not sold in the market but used solely for diagnosis. The court distinguished the petitioner's activities from cases involving processing goods for sale, noting that the diagnostic centre's primary function was diagnosis, not processing goods for commercial purposes. The court also addressed the petitioner's reliance on judgments involving different business activities, clarifying that those cases were not directly applicable to the petitioner's situation. Ultimately, the court held that the petitioner did not meet the criteria of an industrial undertaking engaged in processing goods for sale, leading to the dismissal of the writ application. The court further examined the definition of "processing" in common parlance and distinguished the petitioner's activities from cases where goods were processed for market sale. The court referenced a Supreme Court case involving processing goods for sale and highlighted the distinction between processing for market preparation and processing for diagnosis purposes. The court emphasized that the petitioner's use of films was not for market development but for medical diagnosis, rendering it ineligible for the tax exemption as an industrial undertaking. The court also clarified that the petitioner's activities did not align with the definition of industrial undertaking as per the Income-tax Act, 1961, as they did not involve processing goods for commercial purposes. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ application, affirming that the petitioner did not qualify as an industrial undertaking under the Act.
|
