9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of deduction under Section 80-IA of the IT Act, 1961. 2. Determination of whether the activity of cutting tin plates into tin sheets cut to size constitutes a manufacturing activity. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Disallowance of Deduction under Section 80-IA of the IT Act, 1961: The primary issue in the appeal is the disallowance of Rs. 1,03,99,474 claimed as a deduction under Section 80-IA of the IT Act, 1961. The assessee contends that it is engaged in the manufacturing of tin cans, containers, and components, and thus, complies with all provisions of Section 80-IA. The Assessing Officer (AO) allowed the deduction for tin container components and tin containers but disallowed it for 'tin sheet cut to size', arguing that this activity does not constitute manufacturing. The AO referred to the Supreme Court's definition of 'manufacture' in Union of India vs. Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd., which implies a change resulting in a new and different article with a distinctive name, character, or use. 2. Determination of Whether the Activity Constitutes Manufacturing: The AO observed that while tin containers and their components are distinct items eligible for deduction, 'tin sheet cut to size' remains essentially the same as the input tin sheet, merely cut to required sizes. Therefore, it was not considered a new or different article. The AO cited various court cases, including CST vs. Paper Process Works and Sterling Foods vs. State of Karnataka, to support the view that mere processing does not amount to manufacturing. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, emphasizing that the process of cutting tin sheets to size does not lead to a commercially distinct item and is merely a part of the overall manufacturing process. Assessee's Arguments: The assessee argued that the process of cutting tin sheets to size involves significant changes, making the end product distinct from the raw material. The tin sheets cut to size are specifically manufactured for tin container production and have a distinct commercial identity. The assessee cited various court cases, including CIT vs. East India Hotels Ltd. and CIT vs. Tata Locomotive and Engineering Co. Ltd., to argue that the end product is commercially different from the raw material, qualifying as manufacturing. The assessee also highlighted that the raw material and finished products fall under different excise classifications, further supporting the claim of distinct commercial identity. Tribunal's Findings: The Tribunal found that the process of cutting tin sheets to size and embossing them results in a new and distinct commercial product, different from the raw material. The Tribunal referred to various court cases, including CIT vs. M.R. Gopal and Aspinwall & Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, to support the view that the transformation of raw materials into distinct products qualifies as manufacturing. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee's activity of cutting tin sheets to size and embossing them constitutes manufacturing, making the assessee eligible for the deduction under Section 80-IA. Conclusion: The Tribunal directed the AO to accept the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80-IA for 'tin sheets cut to size' and accordingly determine the total deduction allowable. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, recognizing the activity of cutting tin sheets to size as a manufacturing process eligible for the deduction under Section 80-IA of the IT Act, 1961.
|
