9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to investment allowance under section 32A of the Income-tax Act. 2. Entitlement to investment allowance under section 80-I of the Income-tax Act. 3. Correct interpretation of entry 27 of the Eleventh Schedule to the Income-tax Act by the Tribunal. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Entitlement to Investment Allowance under Section 32A of the Income-tax Act: The primary issue was whether the assessee was entitled to investment allowance under section 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee, a company involved in preparing rubber compounds for use in rubber industries, claimed this allowance. The Income-tax Officer (ITO) denied the claim based on item No. 27 of the Eleventh Schedule, which includes "Crown corks, or other fittings of cork, rubber, polyethylene or any other material." The ITO argued that the assessee's product was a derivative of rubber and not a new article or thing. However, the first appellate authority, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), disagreed, stating that the assessee's product did not fall under entry No. 27 and was substantially different from the raw materials used. The Tribunal upheld this view, emphasizing that the rubber compound was the final product sold to other companies for manufacturing tyres and was not an intermediate product. 2. Entitlement to Investment Allowance under Section 80-I of the Income-tax Act: The second issue was whether the assessee was entitled to investment allowance under section 80-I of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The ITO also denied this claim, using the same reasoning as for section 32A. The first appellate authority partially agreed, allowing the claim under section 32A but not under section 80-I, considering the rubber compound as an intermediate product. The Tribunal, however, found that the rubber compound was a final product and not an intermediary one. It held that the assessee's product was a new article or thing manufactured or produced in an industrial undertaking, thereby entitling the assessee to the deduction under section 80-I as well. 3. Correct Interpretation of Entry 27 of the Eleventh Schedule to the Income-tax Act: The third issue was whether the Tribunal correctly interpreted entry 27 of the Eleventh Schedule to hold that the assessee was entitled to investment allowance under section 32A. The Tribunal found that the rubber compound was a final product, not an intermediary one, and thus did not fall under entry 27. The Tribunal emphasized that the product underwent a detailed process, including mixing with carbon black, rubber processing oil, and other chemicals at high temperature and pressure, resulting in a homogeneous lump known as a rubber compound. This compound was then processed further into sheets and sold as the final product. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument that the product was merely masticated rubber, noting that it was a new product resulting from a complex manufacturing process. Conclusion: The High Court affirmed the Tribunal's findings, answering all questions in the affirmative, against the Revenue and in favor of the assessee. The court emphasized the factual peculiarities, noting that the rubber compound was a final product and not an intermediate one. The decision of the Tribunal was upheld, entitling the assessee to investment allowance under both sections 32A and 80-I of the Income-tax Act. The court also clarified that the product did not fall under entry 27 of the Eleventh Schedule, as it was a new article or thing resulting from a detailed manufacturing process.
|
