Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2014 (2) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2014 (2) TMI 33 - HC - Income Tax


Issues:
1. Eligibility for sec.10B relief in respect of profits from manufacturing food items.
2. Determination of manufacturing activity in the context of outsourcing.

Issue 1:
The assessee appealed against the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's judgment questioning the entitlement to sec.10B relief for profits from manufacturing food items like mathia and chorafali. The Tribunal accepted the majority of the assessee's claims for deduction, acknowledging the manufacturing unit in the Kandla Special Economic Zone as a 100% EOU. The Tribunal considered the assessee as an industrial undertaking engaged in manufacturing when producing various food preparations. However, the Tribunal rejected the claim for deduction when the assessee outsourced manufacturing activities. The Tribunal analyzed the manufacturing process flow chart provided by the assessee and concluded that repackaging outsourced items did not qualify as manufacturing activity by the assessee. Consequently, the matter was referred back to the Assessing Officer to determine profits from items manufactured by the assessee and exclude outsourced items.

Issue 2:
The appellant contended that the Tribunal erred in its decision, emphasizing that despite outsourcing part of the manufacturing activity, the assessee still undertook essential processes like sorting, packing, and storing items. The appellant relied on a previous court decision to support their argument. On the contrary, the Revenue opposed the appeal, stating that the Tribunal's factual finding indicated the assessee did not engage in manufacturing outsourced items. The High Court analyzed the situation and clarified that for sec.10B deduction, the exporter must manufacture or produce the items. As the snacks were manufactured by the suppliers without the assessee's involvement until the preparation stage, subsequent actions like packing and storing did not constitute manufacturing or production. The Court distinguished the present case from the previous decision involving beedies preparation, highlighting the lack of direct involvement by the assessee in manufacturing the food items. The Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Tribunal's factual finding regarding the manufacturing activity.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the Tax Appeal, affirming the Tribunal's decision regarding the eligibility for sec.10B relief and the determination of manufacturing activity in the context of outsourcing.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates