2016 (7) TMI 454 - HC - Income Tax

Entitlement to deduction u/s 80HH and 80I - engagement in manufacturing activities - Held that - As decided in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Hynoup Food & Oil Industries 2011 (7) TMI 1222 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT the activity carried on by the assessee was a manufacturing activity and the assessee is entitled to deduction under Sections 32A, 80HH and 80I of the Income Tax Act. Tribunal also further relying on decision of the Supreme Court in case of CIT v. Vegetables Products Ltd. reported in (1973 (1) TMI 1 - SUPREME Court ) held that where there are two possible views, one which favours the assessee while interpreting the taxing provisions needs to be adopted by the Court and accordingly it held activity of assessee as manufacturing activity. - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of manufacturing activities for deduction under sections 80HH and 80I of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Entitlement of deduction under Section 32A for manufacturing activities.
3. Deletion of addition of interest under Section 68 of the Act.

Issue 1: Interpretation of Manufacturing Activities for Deduction under Sections 80HH and 80I:
The appellant challenged the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the entitlement to deductions under sections 80HH and 80I of the Income Tax Act for the Assessment Year 1994-1995. The Court framed the substantial question of law on whether the assessee was engaged in manufacturing activities to be eligible for the deductions. The Court referred to previous decisions involving the same assessee and highlighted the factors considered, such as the Gross Profit rate, process loss, quality of raw materials, and supervision by government departments. The Tribunal's findings were based on various factors, including the nature of the business, quality of raw materials, and expert opinions on process loss. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that the Assessing Officer could not conclude that the process loss claimed by the assessee was inflated without sufficient evidence.

Issue 2: Entitlement of Deduction under Section 32A for Manufacturing Activities:
The question of entitlement to deduction under Section 32A for manufacturing activities was also raised in the appeal. The Tribunal relied on precedents, including decisions of the Apex Court and the Supreme Court, to conclude that the activities carried out by the assessee constituted manufacturing activities. The Tribunal emphasized that when interpreting taxing provisions, the view favoring the assessee should be adopted if there are two possible interpretations. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to deductions under Sections 32A, 80HH, and 80I of the Income Tax Act.

Issue 3: Deletion of Addition of Interest under Section 68 of the Act:
Regarding the deletion of the addition of interest under Section 68 of the Act, the Assessing Officer disallowed the interest on loans obtained by the assessee, alleging that the loans were fictitious and entries were havala entries. However, the CIT(Appeals) and the Tribunal disagreed with the Assessing Officer's reasoning. The Tribunal considered the earlier years' decisions and held that the issue was factual, with no substantial question of law arising. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that the issue was based on facts and did not warrant interference.

In conclusion, the High Court of Gujarat upheld the Tribunal's decisions on all the issues raised in the appeal, ruling in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue based on the evidence, precedents, and interpretations of the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act.