9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (3) TMI 1104 - HC - Income TaxEntitlement to deduction u/s 80IA/80IB - Manufacture or production or not? - conversion of Paddy into Rice treated as a manufacturing activity - HELD THAT - definition of the word Manufacture though was not available in the Assessment Years before us upto 2003-2004, but the said definition embodies the concept of transformation of object or article into different commercial article as was discussed in several judicial pronouncements from time to time. If a different commercial article comes into existence as understood by the persons who deal with those things, a different approach need not be taken by the Courts of law to hold otherwise. The dehusked Paddy and Rice obviously are not sold on the same rate nor can they be consumed for same purpose in the same form. Therefore, the process of dehusking of Paddy into Rice with the aid of labour and machinery is definitely an industry activity undertaken by the Assessee. It would depend upon the context in which the words Manufacture or production have to be interpreted by the Court of law. In the present case, the context is whether the industrial activity in the form of dehusking of Paddy into Rice amounts to Industrial undertaking engaged in the 'Manufacture or production' of Rice or not. In the said context, in view of the aforesaid cases, we find no reason to hold that the activity of dehusking of Paddy into Rice will not amount to manufacture or production . We do not find justification to give a narrower meaning to these terms, which, by themselves independently or jointly as employed in the said provisions of Section 80IA are wide enough to cover the industrial activity undergone by the Assessee - the Assessee is entitled to the benefit of deduction under Section 80 IA - Decided against revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the conversion of Paddy into Rice constitutes a "manufacturing activity" under Section 80IA/80IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Whether the conversion of Paddy into Rice constitutes a "manufacturing activity" under Section 80IA/80IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961: The core issue revolves around the interpretation of the terms "manufacture" and "production" as used in Sections 80IA and 80IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue challenged the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) which allowed the Assessee's claim for deduction under these sections, arguing that dehusking Paddy to produce Rice does not amount to "manufacture." Legal Arguments and Judgments Cited: Revenue's Argument: - The Revenue contended that the process of dehusking Paddy does not constitute "manufacture" since it does not result in a new and distinct product. They relied on several judgments: - Dunar Foods Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Panchkula: The CESTAT held that conversion of Paddy into Rice did not amount to "manufacture" as Rice and husk remain in their natural form. - Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Vs. B. Raghurama Shetty: The Karnataka High Court held that dehusking Paddy does not transform it into a new product, thus not constituting "manufacture." Assessee's Argument: - The Assessee argued that the term "production" is broader than "manufacture" and includes any process that results in a different commercial article. They cited: - Ganesh Trading Company Vs. State of Haryana: The Supreme Court held that Paddy and Rice are not identical goods in commercial parlance. - Income Tax Officer Vs. Arihant Tiles & Marbles P Ltd.: The Supreme Court ruled that the term "production" has a wider connotation and includes processes that bring a new commercial article into existence. Court's Analysis and Conclusion: Interpretation of "Manufacture" and "Production": - The Court emphasized that the terms "manufacture" and "production" should be interpreted pragmatically and purposively, not narrowly. The process of dehusking Paddy to produce Rice involves a transformation that results in a different commercial article with a distinct name, character, and use. - It was noted that the definition of "manufacture" as inserted in the Act by the Finance (No.2) Act, 1998, effective from 01.04.2009, supports this broader interpretation. Contextual Application: - The Court highlighted that the context in which these terms are used is crucial. In this case, the context is whether the industrial activity of dehusking Paddy qualifies as "manufacture or production" for the purpose of availing deductions under Sections 80IA and 80IB. - The Court found no reason to deny the Assessee the benefit of these deductions, as the process of dehusking Paddy into Rice clearly results in a different commercial article. Final Judgment: - The appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed. The Court held that the Assessee is entitled to the benefit of deduction under Section 80IA for the assessment year 1999-2000 and under Section 80IB for the assessment years 2001-2002, 2002-2003, and 2003-2004. The substantial question of law was answered in favor of the Assessee and against the Revenue. Summary: The High Court ruled that the conversion of Paddy into Rice constitutes "manufacture or production" under Sections 80IA/80IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court emphasized a pragmatic and purposive interpretation of these terms, affirming that the process results in a different commercial article. Consequently, the Assessee was entitled to the deductions claimed for the relevant assessment years.
|
