9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
The judgment involves the grant of investment allowance and relief u/s 80J for the assessment year 1981-82, focusing on whether the assessee's activities of bleaching, calendering, dyeing, and printing of cloth qualify as an 'industrial undertaking' for the purposes of sections 32A and 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Details of Judgment: The assessee, a registered firm, engaged in processing unbleached grey cloth through bleaching, calendering, dyeing, and printing to produce printed cloth. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the claim for deductions u/s 32A and 80J, leading to a loss determination of Rs. 9,92,420. On appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) directed the Income-tax Officer to grant the deductions based on previous Tribunal orders recognizing the assessee as engaged in manufacturing articles. The Revenue contended that the processes carried out by the assessee did not constitute manufacture or production of any article, citing precedents. However, the assessee argued that previous Tribunal orders recognized its eligibility for relief, emphasizing differences in statutory provisions. The Tribunal found no factual differences to deny deductions granted in earlier years and relied on Supreme Court decisions to conclude that the processes of bleaching, dyeing, and printing amounted to manufacturing articles, making the assessee eligible for deductions u/s 32A and 80J. The Tribunal highlighted the Supreme Court's approval of decisions regarding the definition of 'manufacture' and 'production' in relation to textile processes, emphasizing the broad interpretation of these terms. It also referenced a Gujarat High Court case supporting relief u/s 80J for activities like bleaching, dyeing, and printing of cloth. The Tribunal dismissed Revenue's objections regarding the filing of Form No. 10-D, stating its irrelevance due to the assessed loss for the year. Regarding other grounds of appeal, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision to delete an addition towards unexplained investment, as the difference in cost estimates was within acceptable limits. Additionally, the Tribunal found another ground of appeal regarding electrical installations to be infructuous, as no additional amount was added beyond the initial discrepancy. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the assessee's eligibility for deductions u/s 32A and 80J based on the manufacturing nature of its processes and upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decisions on other grounds.
|
