2010 (2) TMI 874 - AT - Income Tax

Deduction under section 80-IB - company has incurred loss from manufacturing activity and by not allowing the claim of deduction under section 80-IB - allocation of expenses between manufacturing activity and non-manufacturing activity and file a statement of allocation of expenses on activity-wise - assessee has filed division-wise profitability statement before the lower authorities - assessee wants to revise the same by saying that on earlier occasion, at the time of the assessment, the assessee was ignorant about the consequences and the Assessing Officer cannot take benefit of assessee s ignorance Held that - there is no profit earned by the manufacturing activity of the assessee and the profit earned from the non-manufacturing activity is not entitled for the deduction under section 80-IB, then the assessee wants to find out new alternative to avail deduction under section 80-IB for which the Tribunal cannot be party, assessee not allowed to reallocate the expenses and thereby recompute the profit of the manufacturing activity and non-manufacturing activity, appeal of the assessee dismissed.

Issues:
1. Eligibility for deduction under section 80-IB of the Income-tax Act.
2. Treatment of contract works as part of manufacturing activity.
3. Allocation of common expenditure among divisions.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Eligibility for deduction under section 80-IB
The appeal concerned the eligibility of the assessee for claiming a deduction under section 80-IB of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 2005-06. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim as the value of plant and machinery exceeded the limit for small scale industrial undertakings. Additionally, the Assessing Officer found that the profits claimed were not derived from the industrial activity, leading to the disallowance. The CIT(A) confirmed the order, prompting the assessee to appeal. The assessee argued that the contract works undertaken were essential for the industrial activity and should be considered part of the industrial undertaking, making them eligible for the deduction. However, the tribunal held that the income derived from contract works did not qualify for relief under section 80-IB, as it did not have a direct nexus with the industrial undertaking. The tribunal emphasized that the laying of pipes did not result in the production of new articles and was not integral to the manufacturing activity, thus denying the deduction.

Issue 2: Treatment of contract works
The assessee contended that the contract works were intertwined with the industrial activity and should be treated as part of the manufacturing process. The tribunal, however, disagreed, stating that laying pipes did not lead to the creation of new articles and was akin to a works contract rather than manufacturing. Relying on legal precedents, the tribunal concluded that the laying of pipes did not have a direct nexus with the industrial activity, thereby rejecting the argument for deduction under section 80-IB.

Issue 3: Allocation of common expenditure
The assessee raised concerns regarding the allocation of common expenditure between manufacturing and non-manufacturing activities. The tribunal noted that the assessee had initially provided a division-wise profitability statement without proper allocation of common expenses. The assessee later sought to revise the statement, reallocating expenses to show a profit from manufacturing activities. The tribunal deemed this revision as an afterthought and lacking merit, as the original statement was based on audited accounts and represented by a Chartered Accountant. The tribunal refused to allow the reallocation of expenses at a later stage, emphasizing that the authorities had already determined the lack of profit from manufacturing activity, and the assessee's attempt to revise the statement was not acceptable.

In conclusion, the tribunal dismissed the appeal of the assessee, upholding the disallowance of the deduction under section 80-IB based on the lack of direct nexus between the contract works and the industrial undertaking, as well as the refusal to reallocate expenses after the initial assessment.

← Previous Next →