1987 (3) TMI 37 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues: Interpretation of relief u/s 80-I of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding profits from the business of manufacture and sale of cotton seed oil.

Judgment Summary:

The High Court of Bombay was tasked with determining whether the relief u/s 80-I of the Income-tax Act, 1961 should be granted based on composite profits or proportionate profits solely on cotton seed oil. The assessee, a private limited company engaged in the manufacture and sale of cotton seed oil, claimed deduction under section 80-I for the assessment year 1970-71. The Income-tax Officer limited the relief to profits from cotton seed oil only, excluding other related products like cotton seed oil-cake, lint, and husk. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld this decision, but the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing deduction for the entire profits attributable to the activity of cotton seed oil production, a "priority industry" as per section 80B(7) of the Act.

The Court considered precedents from other High Courts, such as the Calcutta High Court's decision in CIT v. Sutna Stone and Lime Co. Ltd., where profits from lime production were deemed attributable to the priority industry of limestone manufacture. In contrast, the Madras High Court's ruling in CIT v. Coromandal Prodorite Private Ltd. held that losses from unrelated activities did not qualify for relief under section 80-I. In the present case, the Tribunal found that cotton seed cake, lint, and husk were by-products of cotton seed oil production, part of the priority industry. Therefore, the Court concluded that all profits from the manufacture and sale of cotton seed oil, including related by-products, were eligible for deduction u/s 80-I.

In conclusion, the Court held that all profits and gains attributable to the priority industry of cotton seed oil production qualified for deduction under section 80-I of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The relief should be granted based on the composite profits of the priority industry, not proportionate profits as calculated by the Income-tax Officer. No costs were awarded in this matter.