Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2020 (12) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2020 (12) TMI 304 - HC - Income Tax


Issues:
- Whether the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 10B of the Income Tax Act as a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU) engaged in manufacturing and processing of Crabs, a Sea Product.

Analysis:
1. The appeals were filed challenging the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, regarding the deduction under Section 10B of the Income Tax Act for various Assessment Years.
2. The appellant is involved in manufacturing, processing, and exporting sea foods, specifically Pasteurized Crab Meat, as a 100% Export Oriented Unit.
3. The appellant claimed deduction under Section 10B of the Act, which was allowed for some years but denied for others by the Assessing Officer based on failure to meet specific conditions.
4. The appellant appealed to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and then to the Tribunal, where the orders were upheld, leading to the current challenge before the High Court.
5. The appellant argued that their manufacturing activities qualify for deduction under Section 10B, emphasizing the distinct nature of their product and the recognition as a 100% EOU.
6. The absence of a clear definition of "Manufacture" under Section 10B was highlighted, with contentions that the authorities erred in not understanding the nature of the appellant's activities.
7. The respondent contended that the process carried out by the appellant was processing, not manufacturing, and cited previous decisions to support this argument.
8. The High Court found that the authorities failed to properly examine the nature of the appellant's activities, crucial for determining eligibility for deduction under Section 10B.
9. The Court noted that a visit to the appellant's facility would have provided clarity on the manufacturing process, which was not done by the authorities.
10. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeals, set aside the previous orders, and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision after inspecting the appellant's unit and considering all relevant factors. The Substantial Question of Law was left open, and no costs were awarded.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates