9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Allowance of deduction under s. 80J of the IT Act for a dyeing unit. - Determination of whether dyeing of yarn constitutes manufacturing or production of articles. - Requirement of separate accounts and auditing for claiming deduction under s. 80J. - Dispute over the eligibility of deduction under s. 80J for a spinning unit. Analysis: The dispute in this case revolves around the allowance of deduction under section 80J of the Income Tax Act for a dyeing unit established by the assessee. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) disallowed the claim citing reasons such as the unit not being separate, lack of separate trading and P&L accounts, and failure to audit the accounts as required by law. Additionally, it was argued that dyeing yarn did not amount to manufacturing or production of articles as per the provisions of section 80J. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) allowed the deduction, considering the dyeing unit as a separate industrial undertaking eligible for relief under section 80J. The CIT(A) emphasized that the dyed yarn constituted a new product and that the accounts were duly audited, meeting the statutory requirements. The Revenue challenged this decision, contending that dyeing did not result in manufacturing, and separate accounts were not maintained for the unit. The Tribunal analyzed the concept of manufacturing and production in light of judicial precedents. It held that dyeing yarn did not bring forth a new product with a different chemical composition or structure, thus not constituting manufacturing. However, the process qualified as production under section 80J(4)(iii) as it involved processing raw material without altering its inherent quality. The Tribunal also noted that the investment allowance under section 32A was granted, indicating the unit's engagement in production activities. Regarding the requirement of separate accounts, the Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's stance that the difficulty in ascertaining separate profits should not hinder the application of section 80J. It found that the assessee maintained separate trading and P&L accounts for the dyeing unit, fulfilling the auditing condition. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument that the unit was merely an extension of the existing business, emphasizing the distinct nature of the dyeing unit. In a separate issue concerning a spinning unit, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow deduction under section 80J, despite the lack of separate accounts. It reasoned that as long as profits could be reasonably ascertained, separate accounts were not mandatory. The Tribunal ultimately dismissed all three appeals, affirming the CIT(A)'s order granting deduction under section 80J for both the dyeing and spinning units.
|
