2014 (5) TMI 311 - AT - Income Tax

Additional depreciation providing food services and manufacturing eatables - production of food articles - Held that - Following Deepkiran Foods (P.) Ltd. Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Range-1, 2013 (2) TMI 483 - ITAT AHMEDABAD - the manufacturing of eatables like paratha, samosa, dhokla have been held to be a manufacturing process - The AO has held that eatables retained the characteristics of original ingredients - The assumption has been categorical dislodged by holding that the raw material being in the form of wheat, potato etc. are totally different which is a new commercial commodity called by various names and distinctly sold in the market thus, the assessee is engaged in the activities of production and manufacture of article or thing and is eligible for additional depreciation Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of additional depreciation
2. Disallowance of capitalization on continuing fees/royalty expenses

Analysis:

Issue 1 - Disallowance of Additional Depreciation:
The case involved the revenue's appeal against the CIT(A)'s order regarding the disallowance of additional depreciation claimed by the assessee for the assessment year 2008-09. The assessing officer disallowed the claim based on a Supreme Court judgment, stating that the activity did not qualify as manufacturing or production. The CIT(A) allowed the claim, relying on previous orders for the same assessee. The ITAT reviewed the manufacturing process of the assessee, involving the production of food items like pizzas and pastas. The ITAT considered the definition of "manufacture" as per the Finance Act 2009 and various precedents, concluding that the assessee's activities indeed constituted manufacturing. The ITAT dismissed the revenue's appeal, upholding the eligibility of the assessee for additional depreciation.

Issue 2 - Disallowance of Capitalization on Continuing Fees/Royalty Expenses:
The second issue pertained to the disallowance of a portion of expenditure attributable to royalty expenses/continuing fees by the assessing officer. The CIT(A) had allowed the claim based on previous orders. The ITAT affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, citing consistency with earlier judgments and the specific manufacturing processes involved in the production of food items by the assessee. The ITAT held that the activities of the assessee qualified as manufacturing, thereby rejecting the revenue's appeal.

In conclusion, the ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision in favor of the assessee, allowing both the additional depreciation claim and the treatment of royalty expenses/continuing fees as revenue expenditure. The judgment highlighted the detailed manufacturing processes undertaken by the assessee and the legal interpretations supporting the eligibility of the assessee for the claimed benefits.