9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of entry (2) of the Sixth Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding 'aluminium' and its scope. Determination of whether the business of manufacturing and selling aluminium articles qualifies as a priority industry for relief under section 80-I of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Analysis: The judgment by the High Court of Calcutta involved two main issues. Firstly, the court was tasked with interpreting entry (2) of the Sixth Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961, specifically in relation to the term 'aluminium' and whether it encompasses both aluminium metal and aluminium articles. The Tribunal's decision was challenged, arguing that 'aluminium' should be understood to include aluminium articles as well. The counsel for the assessee relied on various precedents, including decisions by the Supreme Court and the Kerala High Court, to support their interpretation. However, the court referred to a previous decision by the same court which held wire rods were not considered iron and steel but metal, thus not entitled to special rebate. The court found that the absence of specific mention of aluminium products in the Sixth Schedule did not warrant a departure from the precedent set in the wire rods case, leading to a ruling in favor of the Revenue on this issue. Secondly, the court had to determine whether the business of manufacturing and selling aluminium articles could be classified as a priority industry for the purpose of claiming relief under section 80-I of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal had denied the assessee-company the entitlement to relief under this provision. The counsel for the assessee argued for a broader interpretation in favor of the assessee, citing the principle that in case of ambiguity, an entry should be construed in favor of the assessee to provide greater relief. However, the court noted that this argument had been previously rejected by the court in a similar case where ambiguity was not found. Applying the precedents and decisions to the facts of the case, the court ruled in favor of the Revenue on this issue as well. In conclusion, both questions raised in the reference were answered in the affirmative and in favor of the Revenue. The judgment was a joint decision by Judges Sabyasachi Mukharji and Sudhindra Mohan Guha, with each concurring on the outcome. The parties were directed to bear their own costs in the matter.
|
