9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of section 80E of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for claiming a rebate on tax payable based on the manufacturing of fertilizers. Whether the bonemeal manufactured by the assessee qualifies as an item specified in the Fifth Schedule for the purpose of claiming the rebate. Analysis: The case involved the interpretation of section 80E of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for claiming a rebate on tax payable by an assessee engaged in the business of manufacturing fertilizers. The assessee claimed an 8% rebate on tax payable for the assessment year 1966-67 based on the manufacturing of bonemeal, which they considered a fertilizer rich in nitrogen and phosphorus. The dispute arose as to whether bonemeal falls under the items specified in item 13 of the Fifth Schedule, which lists various fertilizers eligible for the rebate under section 80E. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner initially denied the rebate, stating that only industries manufacturing the enumerated items in item 13 of the Fifth Schedule were eligible for the rebate. However, the Tribunal allowed the rebate, considering the enumerated items as illustrations and not restrictive of the term "fertilizer." The revenue contended that the use of the word "namely" after "fertilizers" in item 13 restricted the interpretation to the enumerated items only, excluding bonemeal. The court analyzed the use of the word "namely" in legal interpretation and noted that it indicates a restrictive meaning, as opposed to "including," which implies an extensive meaning. Referring to legal sources, the court emphasized that the word "namely" restricts the interpretation to the enumerated items, as seen in similar legal contexts and historical cases. The court concluded that since bonemeal was not among the enumerated items in item 13, the assessee was not entitled to the rebate claimed under section 80E. In conclusion, the court ruled in favor of the revenue, denying the rebate claim for the assessee based on the interpretation of item 13 of the Fifth Schedule. The court held that the use of "namely" restricted the application to the enumerated items, excluding bonemeal. The revenue was awarded costs, and the counsel's fee was set at Rs. 250.
|
