9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Whether the business of fishing with a trawler qualifies as an industrial undertaking eligible for deduction under section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Analysis: The case involved a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, regarding the eligibility of an assessee-company engaged in fishing with a trawler for relief under section 80J. The assessee claimed that the trawler used for fishing qualified as a "ship" and that the business of catching and selling fish after processing constituted manufacture or production by an industrial undertaking. The Income-tax Officer initially rejected the claim, citing a previous court decision. However, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal later ruled in favor of the assessee, considering the business as an industrial undertaking eligible for relief under section 80J. This decision was based on a Kerala High Court case. The matter was then brought before the Bombay High Court for opinion. In the hearing, the Revenue's counsel referred to a previous case where the court had determined that profits from fishing activities did not qualify as profits derived from a ship for section 80J benefits. The assessee's counsel argued that the previous case did not address whether fishing activities amounted to manufacturing or production under section 80J. The court examined the previous decision and clarified that it focused solely on profits derived directly from a ship, not on whether fishing activities constituted manufacturing. The court emphasized that the key issue was whether the activity of catching fish amounted to manufacturing or production of articles under section 80J. The court analyzed the provisions of section 80J, which provide relief to industrial undertakings based on manufacturing or production of articles. It concluded that catching fish did not constitute manufacturing or production of fish. The court likened fishing to collecting natural resources like sand or stones, stating that catching fish did not equate to manufacturing fish. The court highlighted that section 80J benefits were not applicable to activities like fishing, which did not involve manufacturing or production. Further, the court reviewed the Kerala High Court decision cited by the Tribunal, which involved a different context regarding processing and export of fish. The court clarified that the criteria for being considered an industrial company in that case were distinct from the requirements under section 80J. In the present case, the assessee did not meet the condition of manufacturing or producing articles to qualify for relief under section 80J. Ultimately, the court held that the assessee engaged in fishing with a trawler was not eligible for relief under section 80J as fishing activities did not amount to manufacturing or production of articles. The court answered the referred question in the negative, ruling in favor of the Revenue. No costs were awarded in the case.
|
