2013 (8) TMI 983 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance of deduction u/s. 80IB - Held that - As decided in assessee s own case for AY 2007-08 the assessee s eligible undertaking itself was independently carrying out the complete activity i.e. from mixing, grinding till the pelletisation. The raw materials once consumed cannot be reconverted into the same position. Its utility gets changed. The prime raw materials such as, maize, soya oil, rice bran, etc. can no more be regarded to be the rice bran, soya oil, maize.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Appeal against CIT(A) order deleting deduction u/s. 80IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:
1. The appeal by revenue challenges the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance of deduction u/s. 80IB of the Act. The revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in not considering certain Apex Court decisions as the basis for disallowing the deduction claimed by the assessee.

2. The Tribunal referred to its own order in the assessee's case for AY 2007-08, where it was established that the assessee was engaged in the manufacture of an article, making them eligible for deduction under section 80IB. The Tribunal emphasized that the assessee's activities met the criteria of manufacturing or production of an article as required by the Act.

3. The Tribunal highlighted that the assessee's operations involved significant transformation of raw materials into a distinct product, poultry feed, recognized by trade and statutory authorities. The Tribunal also noted that the Central Government had acknowledged the poultry feed industry as eligible for deduction u/s. 80IB(4), indicating its manufacturing nature.

4. The Tribunal compared the case with a precedent where a similar activity was considered processing and not manufacturing. However, in the present case, the Tribunal found that the assessee's operations constituted manufacturing due to the substantial changes in raw materials and the distinct nature of the final product. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision in favor of the assessee.

5. Considering the identical issue and similar facts, the Tribunal concluded that the assessee was engaged in manufacturing activities, aligning with the requirements of section 80IB. The Senior DR also acknowledged that the issue was in favor of the assessee. Consequently, the appeal of the revenue was dismissed, affirming the decision in favor of the assessee.

6. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, emphasizing the eligibility of the assessee for deduction u/s. 80IB based on their manufacturing activities, as established through a thorough analysis of the relevant legal provisions and precedents.