2019 (7) TMI 1414 - HC - Income Tax

Benefits of section 80-IA - transfer of machinery from Aurangabad Unit in excess of 20% of the total value of the plant machinery - claim beyond the prescribed statutory period of 10 years - Revenue had contended before the Tribunal that the petitioner had transferred its machinery previously used at Aurangabad to its units at Daman and thereby breached this condition - HELD THAT - The Tribunal in a detailed discussion contained in the impugned judgment, had rejected the contention. The Tribunal had taken into account the valuation of the existing machinery used at Daman and the valuation of the written down value of the machinery transferred from Aurangabad to come to the conclusion that the same did not exceed 20% of the total value of the machinery. The entire issue is thus based on factual consideration and on appreciation of evidence on record. No question of law arises. Unit 2 at Daman is nothing but an extension of the existing unit and the assessee desired to extend the benefits of section 80-IA beyond the prescribed statutory period of 10 years - Tribunal noted that the operations of Unit-1 at Daman started in A.Y. 1995-1996 and the operations of the Unit-2 at Daman started during the period relevant to the Assessment Year 1999-2000. It was further noted that the products manufactured at both the Units were different, though some of the pharmaceutical formulations may be common. The Tribunal noted that in Unit-1, the assessee was manufacturing oral liquids only, whereas at the Unit-2, the assessee had started manufacturing tablets, capsules as well as certain orally administered liquids. The assessee had also commenced for the first time manufacturing activity of certain antibiotics. The Tribunal, therefore, came to the conclusion that the formation of Unit-2 at Daman cannot be seen as a mere extension of the assessee s existing unit-1. The Tribunal has discarded the Revenue s contention that both the Units shared common amenities and common central excise registration and, therefore, cannot be seen as a separate industry, was rejected by the Tribunal. The assessee had presented full details of purchase of new plot, efforts made for obtaining separate excise registration for the new industry as well as for obtaining of a separate electric connection. Again, the Tribunal has examined the relevant factors and come to the conclusion which does not given rise to any substantial question of law.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Disallowance of claim of deduction under section 80-IA for Unit-1 at Daman.
2. Classification of Unit-2 at Daman as a separate and independent unit for tax benefits.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Disallowance of claim of deduction under section 80-IA for Unit-1 at Daman:
The respondent-assessee, engaged in manufacturing pharmaceutical products, claimed exemption under section 80-IA for its manufacturing units at Daman. The Revenue challenged this claim on two grounds. Firstly, it argued that the assessee had used old machinery exceeding 20% of the total installed machinery value, violating section 80-IA(2)(ii). Secondly, the Revenue contended that Unit-2 at Daman was not an independent unit but an extension of Unit-1. The Tribunal, after detailed analysis, rejected the Revenue's contentions. It found that the machinery transfer did not breach the 20% limit and that Unit-2 was not merely an extension but a separate unit with distinct manufacturing activities. The Tribunal's decision was based on factual considerations and evidence, concluding that no legal question arose.

Issue 2: Classification of Unit-2 at Daman as a separate and independent unit for tax benefits:
The Tribunal noted that Unit-1 at Daman commenced operations earlier, manufacturing oral liquids, while Unit-2 started later, producing tablets, capsules, and antibiotics. Despite some common products, the units had distinct manufacturing processes. The Revenue argued that both units shared amenities and registration, suggesting Unit-2 was not separate. However, the Tribunal disagreed, considering the efforts made by the assessee to establish Unit-2 as an independent entity, including acquiring a new plot, separate registrations, and utilities. The Tribunal's decision favored the assessee, concluding that Unit-2 was not a mere extension of Unit-1. It found no substantial legal question in the Revenue's contentions, leading to the dismissal of all appeals with similar issues.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the Tribunal's decisions on both issues related to the claim of deduction under section 80-IA for Unit-1 at Daman and the classification of Unit-2 at Daman as a separate and independent unit for tax benefits.