2013 (6) TMI 224 - HC - Income Tax

Deduction u/s 80IB - activity of cutting of stone and manufacturing tiles - manufacture / production - Held that - present appeal is fully covered by decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Udaipur vs. M/s. Arihant Tiles & Marbles Pvt. Ltd. 2013 (6) TMI 45 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT - assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 80HHC - Decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 80 IB of the Income Tax Act for deduction eligibility.
2. Determining whether cutting stone and manufacturing tiles qualifies as production under Section 80 IB.
3. Application of legal precedents like Arihant Tiles & Marbles case to the current scenario.

Analysis:
The High Court heard two appeals together involving the interpretation of Section 80 IB of the Income Tax Act. The Court admitted the appeals based on substantial questions of law related to the eligibility of the assessee for deduction under Section 80 IB. The primary issue was whether the activity of cutting stone and manufacturing tiles constituted production for the purpose of claiming benefits under Section 80 IB. The Court considered the judgments of the Supreme Court and the Division Bench in the Arihant Tiles & Marbles case to assess the applicability of legal principles to the present case.

The counsel for both parties referenced a previous decision by a co-ordinate Bench of the Court for the assessment year 2003-04, which had been affirmed by the Apex Court. The Court noted that the issue had already been addressed in a previous case concerning the same assessee. The judgment passed in the earlier case was based on the Arihant Tiles & Marbles case and was upheld by the Apex Court. The Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue, citing consistency with previous decisions and lack of merit in the current appeals.

The appeals were specific to the assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07, with a reference to a prior case for the assessment year 2003-04. The Court highlighted that the decisions of both the Division Bench and the Apex Court had already settled the legal questions involved in the present case. Consequently, the Court ruled in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue, leading to the dismissal of the appeals with no costs imposed. The Registry was instructed to include a copy of the order in the relevant file for record-keeping purposes.