9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
Interpretation of whether the business carried out by the assessee in its computer division qualifies as an industrial undertaking under section 32A(2)(b)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Summary: The case involved a dispute regarding the eligibility of the assessee's computer division for investment allowance under section 32A(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Income-tax Officer initially denied the allowance, considering the computer as an office appliance. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) also held that the computer division did not meet the conditions of section 32A(2)(b)(iii). However, the Tribunal determined that the computer division was a factory registered under the Factories Act and engaged in activities that transformed data into distinct end products. Relying on precedents, the Tribunal concluded that the computer was not an office appliance and that the business qualified as an industrial undertaking. In analyzing whether the assessee was an industrial undertaking for manufacturing or production purposes, the Tribunal found that the computer division was a profit-earning center providing services to external customers, registered as a factory, and engaged in a profitable venture. The Tribunal emphasized that the outputs generated by the computer were fundamentally different from the inputs, supporting the classification of the business as an industrial undertaking. The Court referred to various legal precedents to support the contention that activities involving data processing and computer operations constituted manufacturing or production. Definitions of "production" and "manufacture" were discussed, highlighting the creation of new articles or substances. The Court also cited cases where printing and processing activities were considered as manufacturing, further reinforcing the industrial nature of the assessee's operations. Based on the evidence presented and legal interpretations provided, the Court affirmed that the computer division qualified as an industrial undertaking meeting the criteria outlined in section 32A(2)(b)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The judgment favored the assessee, and no costs were awarded. Separate Judgment by BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE J.: Justice Bhagabati Prasad Banerjee concurred with the decision and agreed with the reasoning presented in the main judgment.
|
