9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (3) TMI 240 - HC - Income TaxDeduction u/s 80IB - manufacturing - Revenue filled an appeal against the judgment of the Tribunal on the ground that the activity carried on by the assessee does not amount to manufacturing or production of an article or thing within the meaning of Section 80IB(3) of the Act - The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing home-care products including perfume sprays, air fresheners, room fresheners as also polish spray; rust removers, etc and claimed deduction under Section 80IB on the income derived from its activity, the assessee for the A.Y 2004-05 - Held that - Tribunal noted the process undertaken by the assessee in producing the air fresheners -that for bringing into existence the air fresheners as a commodity saleable in the market, the assessee had to undertake several steps like Container Forming, Pre-mix Preparation,Cleaning of Tins Cans, Filling, Crimping, Charging , sealing, packing ,etc. - Tribunal, by the impugned order, rejected the Revenue s appeal confirming the view of the CIT(A) that the activity carried out by the assessee would amount to manufacturing activity.
Issues:
- Eligibility for deduction under Section 80IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 based on manufacturing activities. Analysis: 1. Issue of Eligibility for Deduction under Section 80IB: - The primary issue in this case revolved around the eligibility of the assessee for deduction under Section 80IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 based on the manufacturing activities carried out. The assessee was engaged in manufacturing home-care products, including perfume sprays, air fresheners, and other related items. 2. Factual Background and Assessment: - The Assessing Officer initially rejected the claim for deduction under Section 80IB, stating that the activities did not amount to manufacturing or production of "an article" or "thing" as required by the Act. 3. Appeal and CIT(A) Decision: - The assessee appealed the decision, and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] examined the manufacturing process in detail. The CIT(A) concluded that the assessee did indeed carry out manufacturing activities within the scope of Section 80IB. 4. Tribunal Decision and Revenue's Appeal: - The Revenue then approached the Tribunal against the CIT(A)'s decision. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing the manufacturing activities undertaken by the assessee in producing various home-care products, including perfumes and air fresheners. 5. High Court Judgment: - The High Court, after reviewing the Tribunal's decision and the manufacturing process undertaken by the assessee, found no error in the Tribunal's view. The Court highlighted the detailed steps involved in the manufacturing process, including container forming, pre-mix preparation, filling, crimping, charging, weighting, water bathing, sealing, and packing. 6. Manufacturing Process Analysis: - The Court analyzed the complex manufacturing process carried out by the assessee, emphasizing the creation of a new marketable product with excise duty liability. The Court noted that the activities undertaken by the assessee clearly constituted manufacturing within the meaning of Section 80IB of the Act. 7. Conclusion and Dismissal of Tax Appeal: - Ultimately, the High Court dismissed the Tax Appeal, ruling that the assessee's activities met the criteria for deduction under Section 80IB. The Court criticized the Assessing Officer for unjustly denying the deduction and affirmed the decisions of the CIT(A) and the Tribunal, highlighting the manufacturing nature of the activities undertaken by the assessee.
|
