9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (1) TMI 743 - HC - Income TaxExemption from payment of tax under section 10B - 100% EOU - Scope of term Manufacture - exemption denied on the ground that products exported were not produced or manufactured in the industrial unit of the assessee s 100 per cent Export Oriented Unit - Held that - the purpose of incorporation of section 2(r) of the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 into section 10AA of the Income-tax Act is to provide a liberal meaning to the word manufacture which takes in even blending, refrigeration etc. It was noticed by this court that the definitions of manufacture contained in the above definition clauses are very liberal which takes in even processing like blending. - Free Trade Zones and to 100 per cent Export Oriented Units covered by sections 10, 10AA and 10B of the Income-tax Act. Therefore, following the judgment of this court in Girnar Industries v. CIT (2009 -TMI - 78306 - KERALA HIGH COURT) we hold that assessee is entitled to exemption on the profit derived by its 100 per cent Export Oriented Unit engaged in blending, packing and export of tea bags and tea packets.
Issues:
1. Interpretation of section 10B of the Income-tax Act regarding exemption for 100% Export Oriented Units engaged in blending, packing, and export of tea bags and tea packets. Analysis: The judgment revolves around the question of whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in denying the appellant's entitlement to exemption under section 10B of the Income-tax Act for the profits derived from its 100% Export Oriented Unit engaged in blending, packing, and exporting tea products. The appellant claimed exemption for the assessment years 2001-02 and 2002-03, which was declined by the department based on the deletion of the definition of "manufacture" that included "processing" from section 10B. The department argued that processing activities like blending and packing of tea no longer qualified for exemption post the amendment. However, the appellant relied on a Division Bench judgment declaring eligibility for exemption for a similar activity in a Special Economic Zone. The appellant contended that the schemes of exemption under sections 10A, 10AA, and 10B were similar, and thus, they should be entitled to the exemption. The court noted the omission of considering a Supreme Court decision that blending of tea amounts to processing, not manufacturing, and the removal of the definition clause of "manufacture" from section 10B. The court analyzed the legislative intention behind the amendment and emphasized interpreting tax laws reasonably and in favor of the assessee. The court compared the schemes of deduction of export market development allowance and exemption on export profits, highlighting the availability of exemptions for industrial units in Free Trade Zones, Special Economic Zones, and 100% Export Oriented Units. It considered the definitions of "manufacture" in relevant policies and Acts, noting the liberal interpretation to include processes like blending and processing. The court found that the purpose of removing the definition of "manufacture" from section 10B was not to restrict its meaning but to provide a broader scope. The appellant's unit was recognized as a 100% Export Oriented Unit engaged in blending and packing of tea for export, meeting the criteria under section 10B. Denying exemption based on the lack of manufacturing or production would defeat the purpose of the section, especially when similar activities in Special Economic Zones and Free Trade Zones enjoy exemptions under different sections. The court differentiated the applicability of a Supreme Court decision in a different context and concluded that the appellant was entitled to exemption for its Export Oriented Unit, reversing the Tribunal's orders and restoring the appellant's entitlement for exemption. In conclusion, the judgment clarifies the interpretation of section 10B regarding exemptions for 100% Export Oriented Units engaged in specific activities like blending, packing, and exporting tea products. It emphasizes the legislative intent, reasonable interpretation of tax laws, and the similarities between exemption schemes under different sections of the Income-tax Act. The court's analysis of relevant definitions and policies supports the appellant's entitlement to exemption, ensuring consistency with similar industry activities in other zones.
|
