9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Claim of investment allowance under section 32A of the IT Act for new plant and machinery installed at Kandla project. Analysis: The appeals were against the CIT (A)'s order rejecting the claim for investment allowance for the assessment years 1980-81 and 1981-82. The appellant, a registered firm running an oil mill, claimed investment allowance for new plant and machinery installed at Veraval and Kandla. The ITO rejected the claim for Kandla project, stating the appellant was not engaged in manufacturing activity there. The CIT (A) upheld the disallowance, considering the appellant's activity as processing, not manufacturing. The appellant contended that its activity of converting imported oil into a marketable commodity constituted manufacturing. The D.R. argued that more than processing was required for manufacturing, citing various court decisions. The tribunal found that the appellant's activities at Kandla, including heating, filtering, filling, tinning, and sealing oils, transformed the imported oil into a marketable product. The tribunal referenced cases where similar processing activities were considered manufacturing. It distinguished cases cited by the D.R., noting the unique nature of the appellant's activities in converting thick or crude oil into a marketable commodity through mechanical processes. The tribunal concluded that the appellant's activities constituted manufacturing, entitling it to investment allowance for the new plant and machinery at Kandla. The tribunal emphasized that the appellant's processing activities at Kandla were akin to manufacturing, as they transformed the imported oil into a marketable commodity through various mechanical processes. It noted that the Gujarat High Court and Ahmedabad Tribunal consistently considered such processing activities as manufacturing. The tribunal highlighted the distinction between processing and manufacturing, asserting that the appellant's activities crossed the threshold of mere processing to qualify as manufacturing. It rejected the D.R.'s arguments and found the appellant eligible for investment allowance based on the unique nature of its activities at Kandla. The tribunal distinguished cases cited by the D.R., emphasizing that the appellant's activities resulted in the creation of a new marketable commodity from the imported oil. It noted that the appellant's operations were distinct from mere preservation, as seen in cases involving cold storage plants. The tribunal rejected the D.R.'s reliance on cases involving different circumstances, such as the manufacture of sweet drinks or construction of buildings, as they were not analogous to the appellant's situation. The tribunal concluded that the appellant's activities at Kandla met the criteria for manufacturing, warranting the allowance of investment allowance for the new plant and machinery installed there. In conclusion, the tribunal allowed both appeals, setting aside the CIT (A)'s order and directing the ITO to grant the investment allowance to the appellant for the machineries installed at the Kandla project as claimed by the appellant for both assessment years.
|
