9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to investment allowance under Section 32A of the IT Act. 2. Classification as an industrial company for concessional tax rate under the relevant Finance Act. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Entitlement to Investment Allowance under Section 32A of the IT Act: The assessee, a private limited company, appealed against the disallowance of investment allowance on a generator purchased in the relevant accounting year, costing Rs. 38,033. The ITO denied the claim, stating that the assessee's activity of assembling radios and transistors for Murphy India Ltd. did not constitute manufacturing but was merely job work. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld this view, distinguishing it from the case of CIT v. Tata Locomotive & Engg. Co. Ltd., where assembling imported parts into a finished chassis was considered manufacturing. The Tribunal, however, found that the assessee's activities did meet the criteria for manufacturing. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Idandas v. Anant Ramchandra Phadke, which laid down that manufacturing involves producing a new commodity through labour or machinery, resulting in an end-product different in character from its components. The Tribunal noted that the assessee used machinery, assembly lines, labour, and power to convert loose parts into finished radios/transistors, which perform functions that the individual components could not. The Tribunal also referenced the definition of 'manufacture' in Explanation (3) of Section 10A(7) of the IT Act, which includes assembling as a manufacturing activity. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee's activity of assembling radios and transistors constituted manufacturing. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to investment allowance under Section 32A. 2. Classification as an Industrial Company for Concessional Tax Rate: The second issue was whether the assessee should be treated as an industrial company entitled to the concessional tax rate applicable to industrial companies. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had rejected this claim based on the finding that the assessee was not engaged in manufacturing. The Tribunal, having established that the assessee's activity did constitute manufacturing, further noted that the assessee qualified as a small-scale industrial undertaking. The Tribunal referred to Explanation (2) to Section 32A(2), which defines a small-scale industrial undertaking based on the aggregate value of its machinery and plant. The assessee's plant and machinery were valued at Rs. 46,994, well below the threshold for a small-scale industrial undertaking. Given that the assessee met the criteria for a small-scale industrial undertaking engaged in manufacturing, the Tribunal held that the assessee should be treated as an industrial company. Consequently, the assessee was entitled to the concessional tax rate applicable to industrial companies under the relevant Finance Act. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeal, directing the ITO to grant the investment allowance to the assessee and to apply the concessional tax rate applicable to industrial companies. Both points were answered in favor of the assessee.
|
