9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80HH of the IT Act. 2. Disallowance of the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80-I of the IT Act. Issue 1: Disallowance of Deduction under Section 80HH The assessee, a registered firm owning a cotton press and engaged in trading cosmetics, claimed a deduction under Section 80HH of the IT Act, 1961, for its business income derived from the cotton press. The assessee argued that the activities of sorting, pressing, and baling cotton constituted manufacturing or production, thereby qualifying for the deduction. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) disagreed, stating that the operations performed by the assessee did not qualify as manufacturing or producing articles or things, as required by Section 80HH. The ITO observed that the assessee merely pressed ginned lint into bales without performing any ginning, and this process did not result in the creation of a new product. The bales produced had no utility on their own and were simply compressed forms of lint meant to facilitate storage and transportation. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [Dy. CIT(A)] upheld the ITO's decision, emphasizing that the activities of sorting, pressing, and baling did not result in a qualitative change in the cotton. The Dy. CIT(A) cited the Bombay High Court decision in CIT vs. Ahmed A. Fazalbhoy P. Ltd., which held that processing must result in some change in the commodity. However, in this case, the loose cotton remained essentially the same even after being baled, and thus, the activities did not qualify as manufacturing or production. Issue 2: Disallowance of Deduction under Section 80-I The assessee also claimed a deduction under Section 80-I of the IT Act, 1961, on similar grounds. The ITO and Dy. CIT(A) both concluded that the activities performed by the assessee did not constitute manufacturing or production of any article or thing, as required by Section 80-I. The assessee's counsel cited various judicial decisions to argue that the activities should be considered as processing or manufacturing. However, the authorities maintained that the activities did not result in the creation of a new product with a distinct name, character, or use. Tribunal's Analysis and Decision: The Tribunal examined the definitions and judicial interpretations of 'manufacture' and 'processing' in the context of Sections 80HH and 80-I. It referred to several Supreme Court decisions, including Union of India vs. Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd., Empire Industries Ltd. vs. Union of India, and Ujagar Prints vs. Union of India, which established that 'manufacture' implies the creation of a new and distinct article with a different name, character, or use. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's activities of sorting, pressing, and baling cotton did not result in the creation of a new product. The cotton remained essentially the same before and after the baling process. The Tribunal also referred to the Gujarat High Court decision in CIT vs. Lakhtar Cotton Press Co. (P) Ltd., which held that pressing cotton into bales constituted processing but not manufacturing. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee's activities did not qualify as manufacturing or production under Sections 80HH and 80-I. The Tribunal upheld the Dy. CIT(A)'s order, disallowing the deductions claimed by the assessee. Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed, and the disallowance of the deductions under Sections 80HH and 80-I of the IT Act was upheld. The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities of sorting, pressing, and baling cotton did not amount to manufacturing or production of a new article or thing, and thus, the deductions were not allowable.
|
