9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Interpretation of section 33(1)(b)(B)(i)(a) and item (1) in the Fifth Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding the entitlement to a higher rate of development rebate for the assessment years 1966-67 to 1971-72.
Judgment Summary: The High Court of Kerala was tasked with determining whether the assessee was entitled to a higher rate of development rebate for being engaged in the business of production or manufacture of iron and steel (metal) as per the Fifth Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal had upheld the contention of the assessee, leading to a detailed analysis of the relevant legal provisions. The Court referred to a previous case where a similar question was answered in favor of the assessee, emphasizing the need to reconsider the matter. The factual background of the case involved the re-rolling of steel by the assessee company, transforming mild steel billets and ingots into M. S. rods and steel sections for sale. The Court delved into the legal requirements for claiming development rebate, highlighting the necessity for the machinery to be owned by the assessee and wholly used for business purposes. The key contention revolved around whether the conversion process undertaken by the assessee constituted manufacturing or production of iron and steel. Citing a Supreme Court decision, the Court established that such conversion processes indeed qualify as manufacturing. Further, the Court addressed the argument that the finished products, M. S. rods and steel sections, were distinct from iron and steel, citing precedents to assert that these products retained the essential characteristics of iron and steel. In response to the revenue's contentions, the Court rejected the distinction between "iron and steel" and "iron and steel (metal)," asserting that the addition of "metal" in the Fifth Schedule did not alter the fundamental nature of the products. Drawing on legal precedents, including Supreme Court rulings, the Court concluded that M. S. rods and steel sections were fundamentally iron and steel, falling within the ambit of item (1) in the Fifth Schedule. The Court also addressed additional cases cited by the revenue, ultimately affirming the previous judgment in favor of the assessee and directing the parties to bear their respective costs. In conclusion, the Court upheld the judgment in favor of the assessee, confirming their entitlement to the higher rate of development rebate as per the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
|
