9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Interpretation of priority industry under item No. 16 of the Vth Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the manufacture of 'straw-board'.
Analysis: The judgment delivered by Judge S. S. Sharma and K. N. Shukla pertained to the interpretation of whether the business of manufacturing 'straw-board' qualifies as a priority industry under item No. 16 of the Vth Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Commissioner of Income-tax, M. P., Bhopal, sought the court's opinion on this matter. The assessee, a private limited company, claimed that the manufacture of straw-board falls under the category of a priority industry under the Act and is entitled to benefits. However, the Income Tax Officer (ITO) and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) did not agree with the assessee's contention. The Appellate Tribunal, referencing a previous decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the business of manufacturing straw-board qualifies as a priority industry under item No. 16 of the Vth Schedule to the Act. The judgment highlighted the amendment made to item No. 16 by the Finance Act, 1966, which added the words "including newsprint" after the term "pulp." The court emphasized that when dealing with an inclusive definition, it is inappropriate to give a restrictive interpretation to terms with broader meanings. The addition of "including newsprint" does not limit the scope of the term "paper." The court noted that the term "paper" was not defined in the Act and should be understood in its common parlance rather than a technical sense. The court also agreed with the Tribunal's observation that the process of manufacturing straw-board is akin to the process of manufacturing paper, with some differences in speed and end product characteristics. Ultimately, the court concurred with the Tribunal's decision, stating that the business of manufacturing straw-board qualifies as a priority industry under item No. 16 of the Vth Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to the necessary rebates as per the Act for the assessment years in question. The judgment concluded by stating that there would be no order as to costs, and each party would bear its own expenses.
|
