2013 (8) TMI 1028 - AT - Income Tax

Deduction u/s. 8OIC - Held that - We are of the opinion that Ld. CIT(A) did not commit any error in holding that the activities of the assessee were in the nature of manufacturing, therefore, the assessee is entitled to get deduction under section 80 IC of the Act. We decline to interfere in the relief granted by Ld. CIT(A) and the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
- Determination of manufacturing activity for claiming deduction under section 80 IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Detailed Analysis:
1. Background: The appeals were filed by the revenue against two separate orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A) for assessment years 2007-08 and 2009-10, regarding the allowance of deductions under section 80 IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

2. Assessee's Business Activities: The assessee, a partnership firm, was engaged in manufacturing and trading various auto accessories, spare parts, and decorative items. The production process involved cutting, bending, grinding, holing, welding, polishing, final assembly, and cleaning/packing of products like luggage carriers, wheel caps, and other accessories.

3. AO's Position: The Assessing Officer (AO) contended that the activities of the assessee did not qualify as "manufacturing" under section 80 IC. The AO argued that the process did not result in a substantial transformation of raw materials into distinct finished products.

4. Assessee's Argument: The assessee claimed that its activities constituted manufacturing as per section 80 IC, citing significant transformation of raw materials into new finished products. The product range included various auto accessories, and reliance was placed on legal precedents to support the manufacturing nature of the activities.

5. Ld. CIT(A) Decision: The Ld. CIT(A) held in favor of the assessee, stating that the activities indeed amounted to manufacturing, thereby entitling the assessee to claim deductions under section 80 IC.

6. Appellate Tribunal's Ruling: After considering arguments from both parties and legal precedents, the Appellate Tribunal upheld the decision of the Ld. CIT(A). Citing relevant judgments, including those from the Supreme Court and High Courts, the Tribunal concluded that the assessee's activities qualified as manufacturing, warranting the allowance of deductions under section 80 IC.

7. Final Verdict: The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the revenue, affirming the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) that the assessee's activities constituted manufacturing under section 80 IC. The Tribunal declined to interfere with the relief granted by the Ld. CIT(A), thereby upholding the assessee's entitlement to claim the deductions.

8. Conclusion: The judgment highlights the importance of determining whether specific activities meet the criteria for "manufacturing" under tax laws to claim relevant deductions. Legal precedents and the nature of the transformation of raw materials into finished products play a crucial role in such assessments, as evidenced by the detailed analysis and rulings in this case.