9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the assessee is a company whose business consists wholly in the manufacture or processing of goods within the meaning of Explanation 2 to section 2(18) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Whether the assessee qualifies for a higher rebate of 30% under the Income Tax Act, 1961. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Nature of the Assessee's Business The primary issue was whether the assessee's business consisted wholly in the manufacture or processing of goods as per Explanation 2 to section 2(18) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee was an Indian company established in 1962 with the main object of manufacturing glass fibers and related products. During the relevant accounting year ending on 31st March 1965, the company's factory was still under construction, and the company had invested its share capital in U.K. Treasury Bills and short-term deposits. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) initially allowed a super-tax rebate of 30%, treating the company as one in which the public were substantially interested. However, the Commissioner revised this order, allowing only a 20% rebate, arguing that the company was not engaged in manufacturing activities during the relevant period. The Tribunal reversed the Commissioner's decision, stating that the company's primary object was manufacturing, and the investments were incidental to this main object. The Tribunal emphasized that the character of the business, not the nature of the income, determined the company's status. Thus, the Tribunal concluded that the assessee's business consisted wholly in the manufacture or processing of goods. Issue 2: Qualification for Higher Rebate The second issue was whether the assessee qualified for a higher rebate of 30% under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Commissioner had argued that since the company had not started manufacturing during the relevant period and earned income from non-manufacturing activities, it did not qualify for the higher rebate. The Tribunal, however, held that a liberal construction must be adopted for provisions granting tax concessions. It noted that the company was in the process of setting up its manufacturing plant, and the investments were a prudent management decision to utilize funds temporarily. The Tribunal concluded that the company retained its character as a manufacturing concern, even during the preliminary stage before actual production commenced. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, rejecting the revenue's contentions. It stated that the activities undertaken before the actual manufacturing were preliminary steps necessary for production and did not alter the company's character as a manufacturing concern. The Court also noted that the investments were made to prevent funds from lying idle and were liquidated as soon as the machinery was purchased. The Court emphasized that the Explanation 2 to section 2(18) referred to the nature of the company's activity, not the nature of its income. Therefore, the company qualified for the higher rebate of 30%. Conclusion: The High Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, holding that the assessee's business consisted wholly in the manufacture or processing of goods. Consequently, the assessee qualified for the higher rebate of 30% under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The revenue was directed to pay the costs of the assessee.
|
