9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the activity of producing cattle feed by the assessee-firm qualifies as "manufacture" or "processing" u/s 80-I of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Judgment Summary: Issue: Definition of "Manufacture" vs. "Processing" - The CIT (Appeals) held that the word "manufacture" is not distinctly defined in the Income-tax Act and relied on its dictionary meaning, which involves transformation or change in the material resulting in a new substance with a distinctive name, character, and identity. - The appellant-firm contended that their activity should be considered as "production" and not merely "processing," as it involves creating utilities with value in exchange. Arguments by the Assessee: - The appellant-firm, a registered firm under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, argued that it is entitled to the benefit provided u/s 80-I of the Income-tax Act, 1961. - The firm purchases various raw materials, processes them through a computerized batching system, and undergoes several stages involving mixing, grinding, adding nutrients, and pelletizing, resulting in a final product that is significantly different from the raw materials. - The firm manufactures over 20 varieties of feeds, and the qualities of the manufactured feeds are quite different from the raw materials, which cannot be reverted to their original state. Arguments by the Department: - The Department contended that the activity carried on by the assessee-firm amounts to only processing and not manufacture, as the raw materials do not change their qualities. - Cited various High Court and Supreme Court decisions to support the argument that the activity does not constitute manufacturing but merely improves marketability. Tribunal's Analysis: - The Tribunal examined the provisions of section 80-I and the activity carried on by the assessee-firm. - The appellant-firm is registered as a small-scale industrial unit and recognized as a manufacturer by various authorities. - The Tribunal noted that the end-product, poultry feed or cattle feed, is significantly different from the raw materials used, both in quality and usability, and is not consumed by humans but only by animals. - The Tribunal distinguished the cited cases by the Department, noting that the facts and circumstances of those cases were not identical to the present case. - The Tribunal considered that the activity adopted by the appellant-firm involves a series of changes resulting in a commercially distinct product, thus qualifying as "manufacture." Conclusion: - The Tribunal concluded that the activity followed by the appellant-firm is a manufacturing activity and not merely processing. - The appellant-firm is entitled to the deduction u/s 80-I of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Result: - The appeals filed by the assessee-firm are allowed.
|
