9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (5) TMI 341 - HC - Income TaxDeduction under Section 80-I - manufacturing and trading of hosiery garments such as pullovers, mufflers and blankets etc. - labeling, tailoring, packing, pakki checking, buttons and button holes, linking etc. - AO opined that these processes did not amount to manufacturing activities or production of articles. - held that - It is worthwhile to notice that in para 23 of the judgment of Hon ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Arihant Tiles & Marbles (P) Ltd. (2009 (12) TMI 1 (SC)), Hon ble Mr. Justice S.H. Kapadia (now Hon ble Chief Justice of India) highlighted another aspect observing that if the view of the revenue namely that the activities undertaken by the assessee- respondent was not in the nature of manufacture, was to be accepted then it would have had serious revenue consequences. It was noticed by his Lordship that the assessee- respondent were paying excise duty and some of them were job workers and their activities were recognized by various government authorities as manufacture - Decided in favor of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility of the assessee-respondent for deductions under Section 80-HHC and 80-I of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Determination of whether the processes undertaken by the assessee-respondent amount to "manufacture" or "production" of articles. 3. Applicability of legal precedents and statutory definitions in interpreting "manufacture" and "production". Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Eligibility for Deductions under Section 80-HHC and 80-I: The assessee-respondent, a Limited Company engaged in manufacturing and trading hosiery garments, filed its return of income for Assessment Year 1994-95. The Assessing Officer disallowed deductions under Sections 80-HHC and 80-I, concluding that the processes undertaken by the assessee did not amount to manufacturing activities. The CIT(A) partly upheld the disallowances but allowed deductions for the manufacturing of pullovers. The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, recognizing the processes involved in making pullovers as manufacturing activities, thus entitling the assessee to deductions under Section 80-I. 2. Determination of Manufacturing or Production: The core issue was whether the activities undertaken by the assessee-respondent in converting Flats (pallas) into pullovers constituted "manufacture" or "production". The Assessing Officer opined that these processes did not meet the statutory condition of engaging in manufacturing or production. However, the CIT(A) and the Tribunal found that substantial processing was involved, transforming the Flats (pallas) into a distinct marketable product (pullovers). The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's definition of "manufacture" from Union of India v. Delhi Cloth & Genl. Mills Co. Ltd., emphasizing that "manufacture" implies a transformation resulting in a new and distinct article with a different character, name, and use. 3. Applicability of Legal Precedents and Statutory Definitions: The judgment extensively referenced legal precedents, including the Supreme Court's rulings in Union of India v. Delhi Cloth & Genl. Mills Co. Ltd. and ITO v. Arihant Tiles & Marbles (P) Ltd., to interpret "manufacture" and "production". The Tribunal and the High Court agreed that the processes undertaken by the assessee-respondent in making pullovers involved substantial transformation, thus qualifying as "manufacture". The statutory definition under Section 2(29BA) of the Act, which describes "manufacture" as a transformation resulting in a new and distinct object, was pivotal in the decision. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's findings, emphasizing that the processes resulted in a new marketable product, thereby entitling the assessee to deductions under Section 80-I. Conclusion: The High Court dismissed the revenue's appeal, affirming the Tribunal's decision that the assessee-respondent's activities constituted "manufacture" or "production" under Section 80-I of the Income-tax Act. The processes involved in making pullovers were recognized as substantial, resulting in a new and distinct marketable product. The judgment reinforced the broader interpretation of "production" compared to "manufacture", aligning with established legal precedents and statutory definitions.
|
