9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (10) TMI 433 - AT - Income TaxTCS u/s 206C(7) - Profits and gains from the business of trading in alcoholic liquor, forest produce, scrap, etc. - Held that - As certain items generated out of ship breaking activity might be known commercially as scrap but they are not waste and scrap. These items are reusable as such, and therefore, would not fall within the definition of scrap as envisaged in the Explanation to section 206C(1). The assessee has also contended that it was engaged in the sale of MS pipe, iron which were obtained from ship breaking industries. The assessee himself has not generated any scrap in manufacturing activity, as contemplated in the Explanation. He was a trader. Therefore, the assessee has not sold scrap as such. He has sold the products resulted from ship breaking activity, which are re-usable. Thus, the assessee was not supposed to collect tax under section 206C of the Act. The ld.AO has erred in raising the demand. Allow all appeals and delete additions.
Issues:
Appeals against demand raised under section 206C(7) for Asstt. Years 2011-12 to 2013-14. Analysis: 1. The primary issue in the appeals was the demand raised by the Revenue under section 206C(7) of the Income Tax Act for the Asstt. Years 2011-12 to 2013-14. The demand amounted to varying sums in the respective assessment years. 2. The case revolved around the definition of "scrap" as per Explanation-b to Section 206C. The Revenue contended that the assessee failed to collect tax at the prescribed rate on sales, leading to the demand. The assessee, however, argued that the items sold were not scrap arising from manufacturing activity but reusable products from ship breaking, thus not falling under the definition of scrap. 3. The Tribunal referred to a previous case involving Priya Blue Industries P. Ltd. where the scope of "scrap" was discussed. It was established that items generated from ship breaking activities, though commercially known as scrap, were not waste and scrap, being reusable and not falling under the definition of scrap as per Section 206C(1). 4. The Tribunal's decision was upheld by the High Court, emphasizing that materials usable as such would not be classified as scrap under the Act. The Tribunal remitted the issue to the Assessing Officer to grant relief to the assessee only for sales of scrap arising from manufacturing activity in ship breaking. 5. The judgment highlighted that items from ship breaking activities, though labeled as scrap, were not waste and scrap, as they were reusable products. The assessee's sales were not of scrap generated from manufacturing but of reusable products, making them exempt from tax collection under section 206C. 6. The final decision favored the assessee, with the Tribunal allowing all appeals and deleting the additions made by the Revenue. The judgment emphasized that the assessee, engaged in trading products from ship breaking, was not liable to collect tax under section 206C, as the sold items were not scrap but reusable materials. 7. In conclusion, the Tribunal's detailed analysis of the definition of scrap under Section 206C and its application to the specific activities of the assessee led to the allowance of all appeals and the deletion of the demands raised by the Revenue.
|
