9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Appeal against the order of the learned CIT(A) regarding the manufacturing activity of the assessee under section 10B of the Act.
Details of the Judgment: 1. The appeals filed by the Revenue challenged the decision of the CIT(A) regarding the manufacturing activity of the assessee under section 10B of the Act for the assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05. The Revenue contended that the activities undertaken by the assessee, involving processing of stone, marble, and granite, did not qualify as manufacturing and hence were not eligible for the deduction under section 10B. 2. The Revenue argued that the mere processing and cutting of raw stone by the assessee did not constitute a manufacturing process as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lucky Minmat (P) Ltd. The Revenue sought to reverse the CIT(A)'s order and uphold the Assessing Officer's decision. 3. In response, the Authorized Representative for the assessee contended that the activities carried out by the assessee, including cutting, calibrating, and polishing stone blocks to produce tiles of various dimensions and designs, amounted to manufacturing. It was argued that the end product, i.e., the tiles, was a distinct commercial product resulting from the processing of raw materials. 4. The Tribunal observed that the assessee purchased raw stone blocks and processed them into tiles of different sizes, designs, and quality through various value-added processes. The Tribunal noted that the end product, i.e., the tiles, was a separate and distinct commercial product from the raw material, indicating manufacturing activity. 5. Referring to previous decisions of the Tribunal, the Tribunal held that the activities of cutting boulders into tiles, calibrating, and polishing them resulted in a separate and distinct commercial product, qualifying as manufacturing activity. The Tribunal emphasized that the skilled and specialized work on the product significantly increased its value compared to the raw material. 6. Considering the nature of the activities, the Tribunal concluded that the assessee was engaged in manufacturing and thus entitled to the deduction under section 10B of the Act. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting the absence of evidence to suggest any error in the findings. 7. Consequently, the appeals of the Revenue were dismissed, affirming the decision in favor of the assessee regarding the manufacturing activity and eligibility for deduction under section 10B of the Act.
|
