9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of deduction claimed under section 80J. 2. Levy of tax at a higher rate despite being an industrial undertaking. 3. Disallowance of weighted deduction under section 35B. 4. Disallowance of relief under section 80HH. 5. Disallowance of travelling and vehicle running expenses. 6. Disallowance of various expenses at different sites. 7. Entitlement to investment allowance on new plant and machinery. 8. Higher rate of depreciation on steel shuttering equipment. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Disallowance of Deduction Claimed Under Section 80J: The Income-tax Officer (ITO) disallowed the deduction under section 80J, stating that the assessee was not an industrial undertaking engaged in the manufacture or production of any article or thing. The CIT (Appeals) upheld this view, emphasizing that the mere use of concrete mixers did not qualify as processing goods. The Tribunal, however, found that the assessee was indeed engaged in the manufacture and processing of various materials at different sites, such as steel supports and concrete columns, which qualified it as an industrial undertaking entitled to the deduction under section 80J. 2. Levy of Tax at a Higher Rate Despite Being an Industrial Undertaking: The ITO levied a higher tax rate of 65%, arguing that the assessee was not an industrial company. The CIT (Appeals) agreed, stating that the assessee did not engage in the manufacturing or processing of goods. The Tribunal, however, concluded that the assessee was mainly engaged in the manufacture or processing of goods, thus qualifying it as an industrial company entitled to a lower tax rate. 3. Disallowance of Weighted Deduction Under Section 35B: The ITO disallowed the weighted deduction under section 35B, reasoning that the assessee was not an exporter of goods. The CIT (Appeals) upheld this disallowance. The Tribunal, however, found that the expenses incurred in Bhutan for maintaining branch offices and travelling were for the promotion of sale of services, thus qualifying for the weighted deduction under section 35B. 4. Disallowance of Relief Under Section 80HH: The ITO disallowed the relief under section 80HH, stating that the assessee was not engaged in the manufacture or production of any article or thing. The CIT (Appeals) confirmed this view. The Tribunal, however, found that the assessee was an industrial undertaking engaged in manufacturing various articles, qualifying it for relief under section 80HH. 5. Disallowance of Travelling and Vehicle Running Expenses: The ITO disallowed a portion of the travelling and vehicle running expenses, estimating personal use by directors. The CIT (Appeals) upheld this disallowance. The Tribunal directed the ITO to allow the entire claim, noting that the directors owned personal cars and no disallowance was made in subsequent years. 6. Disallowance of Various Expenses at Different Sites: The ITO disallowed expenses incurred at the Rammam Hydel Project and for food and refreshments at the Kerala Minerals and Metals Works site, treating them as non-business expenses. The CIT (Appeals) upheld these disallowances. The Tribunal allowed the claims, noting that the expenses were incurred for business purposes. 7. Entitlement to Investment Allowance on New Plant and Machinery: The ITO disallowed the investment allowance, arguing that the assessee was not an industrial undertaking. The CIT (Appeals) allowed the claim, stating that the assessee was engaged in construction and manufacturing activities. The Tribunal upheld the CIT (Appeals) decision, confirming the assessee's entitlement to the investment allowance. 8. Higher Rate of Depreciation on Steel Shuttering Equipment: The ITO allowed only 10% depreciation on steel shuttering equipment. The CIT (Appeals) allowed a higher rate of 15%, treating it as building contractor's machinery. The Tribunal upheld the CIT (Appeals) decision, agreeing with the higher depreciation rate. Separate Judgment by Accountant Member: The Accountant Member disagreed with the conclusions about the assessee's claims under sections 80J and 80HH, arguing that the activities did not constitute the manufacture or production of articles or things. He emphasized that the items fabricated were intermediary products integral to the construction work and not independent articles. The Third Member agreed with this view, concluding that the assessee had not manufactured articles or things independent of the main contract to claim benefits under sections 80J and 80HH.
|
