9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of section 5(1)(xxxii) of the Wealth-tax Act for exemption eligibility based on ownership of industrial undertaking engaged in manufacturing or processing of goods. Whether a partnership firm leasing out its rice mill can still be considered engaged in manufacturing or processing of goods. Analysis: The High Court of Andhra Pradesh considered a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the eligibility of an assessee for exemption under section 5(1)(xxxii) of the Wealth-tax Act for their interest in a partnership firm, Venugopal Rice Mills. The Wealth-tax Officer had rejected the exemption claim, stating that the firm was defunct as it did not conduct business during the relevant assessment year. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld this decision, leading to an appeal to the Tribunal, which ruled in favor of the assessee, granting the exemption. The Revenue contended that since the rice mill was leased out, the partnership firm was defunct, and thus, exemption should not be granted. The court analyzed the provisions of section 5(1)(xxxii) of the Act, which exempts assets related to an industrial undertaking owned by a firm engaged in manufacturing or processing of goods. The definition of "industrial undertaking" includes activities like manufacturing or processing of goods. The court emphasized that the key requirement is for the firm to own an industrial undertaking engaged in manufacturing or processing goods. The court noted that the rice mill qualified as an industrial undertaking as it involved the processing of paddy into rice. The contention that the partnership firm was not engaged in manufacturing or processing of goods due to leasing out the rice mill was dismissed. The court highlighted that temporary leasing out of assets does not signify permanent abandonment of business operations. Without evidence of permanent cessation of business, the terms of the exemption clause are considered satisfied. The court emphasized that the partnership firm was engaged in manufacturing or processing of goods during the relevant assessment year, making it eligible for the exemption under section 5(1)(xxxii). The Tribunal's decision to grant exemption to the assessee was deemed justified. The court answered the question in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue, without awarding costs.
|
