2003 (9) TMI 340 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility of the assessee for deduction under section 80-I.
2. Definition of manufacturing activity under section 80-I.
3. Interpretation of relevant legal precedents and their applicability.
4. Role of ancillary or incidental activities in determining eligibility for deduction under section 80-I.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Eligibility of the Assessee for Deduction under Section 80-I:
The primary issue was whether the assessee-company's activities under the TIFR contract qualified for a deduction under section 80-I. The assessee argued that the fabrication and erection of dish antennas constituted manufacturing, thus making the profit eligible for deduction. The Assessing Officer (AO) disagreed, viewing the activities as non-manufacturing and thus ineligible for the deduction.

2. Definition of Manufacturing Activity under Section 80-I:
The core of the dispute revolved around whether the activities carried out by the assessee-specifically the fabrication and erection of dish antennas-qualified as "manufacturing" under section 80-I. The CIT(A) found that the execution of the TIFR contract involved significant manufacturing activities, including the use of specialized equipment and high-precision processes. Consequently, the CIT(A) ruled that 70% of the contract value was attributable to manufacturing activities, thus eligible for deduction under section 80-I.

3. Interpretation of Relevant Legal Precedents and Their Applicability:
The AO relied on the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. N.C. Budharaja & Co., which held that construction activities do not constitute manufacturing. However, the Tribunal distinguished this case, noting that the Budharaja case involved the construction of a dam, a non-movable structure, whereas the present case involved movable dish antennas. The Tribunal also referenced the decision in Dy. CIT vs. Jain Irrigation System Ltd., where the Tribunal held that the fabrication and assembly of irrigation systems qualified as manufacturing. This precedent supported the assessee's position.

4. Role of Ancillary or Incidental Activities in Determining Eligibility for Deduction under Section 80-I:
The Departmental Representative argued that ancillary activities, like erection and commissioning, should not qualify as manufacturing. However, the Tribunal found that the primary activity was the fabrication and supply of dish antennas, with erection and commissioning being ancillary. The Tribunal emphasized that the main activity must be manufacturing or production to qualify for the deduction under section 80-I, and in this case, the primary activity was indeed manufacturing.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the assessee's activities under the TIFR contract primarily involved manufacturing. Therefore, 70% of the contract value was deemed eligible for deduction under section 80-I. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, finding no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.

Result:
The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed.