9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
The judgment involves the interpretation of whether the activities of the assessee in dyeing, printing, and processing grey cloth produced by others amount to the manufacture or production of textiles as specified under item No. 21 of the Ninth Schedule of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for entitlement to additional depreciation under section 32(1)(vi) of the Act. Details of the Judgment: Manufacture or Production of Textiles: The assessee, a limited company, was engaged in dyeing, printing, and processing textile goods, including job work on grey cloth belonging to others. The dispute arose regarding whether the assessee's activities qualified as manufacturing or production of textiles under item No. 21 of the Act. The Income-tax Officer initially rejected the claim, but the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee. The court analyzed the process undertaken by the assessee and concluded that the activities did not meet the criteria for manufacturing or producing textiles as required by section 32(1)(vi) of the Act. Initial Depreciation Claim: In the assessment year 1976-77, the assessee claimed initial depreciation for a boiler, asserting that processing textiles falls under item No. 21 of the Ninth Schedule. The court examined the definition of textiles under the Act and the process carried out by the assessee. It was determined that the activities of dyeing and printing on grey cloth did not transform it into a different commodity, thus not meeting the conditions for claiming depreciation under section 32(1)(vi) of the Act. Legal Arguments and Precedents: The assessee's counsel argued that the transformation of grey cloth through dyeing and printing constituted manufacturing or production of a distinct article. However, the Revenue contended that the assessee merely processed goods already manufactured by others, not engaging in textile manufacturing. The court referenced various judgments cited by both parties, emphasizing the specific requirements outlined in the Act for claiming depreciation allowances. Judicial Analysis and Conclusion: The court scrutinized the language of the relevant provisions and the precedents cited, highlighting the distinction between manufacturing textiles and processing already manufactured goods. It was established that the assessee did not meet the statutory criteria for claiming additional depreciation under section 32(1)(vi) of the Act. Consequently, the Tribunal's decision in favor of the assessee was overturned, ruling in favor of the Revenue. No costs were awarded in this case. This comprehensive summary encapsulates the key issues, arguments, judicial analysis, and the final decision rendered by the High Court of BOMBAY.
|
