Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2015 (5) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2015 (5) TMI 653 - HC - Income Tax


Issues Involved:
1. Whether the conversion of gram Dal into Besan powder amounts to manufacture and whether the profits derived from this process are eligible for deduction under Section 80IB(4) of the Income Tax Act.
2. Whether the profits eligible for deduction under Section 80IB(4) of the Income Tax Act are necessarily to be computed after allowing depreciation under Section 32.
3. Whether the condition of ten or more workers to be employed in the manufacturing process, as specified in Section 80IB(2)(iv), is complied with if ten or more workers were actually engaged on only 73 days during the entire year.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Conversion of Gram Dal into Besan Powder and Deduction under Section 80IB(4)
The court examined whether the process of converting gram Dal into Besan powder constitutes "manufacture" under the Income Tax Act, making the profits eligible for deduction under Section 80IB(4). The assessee argued that the process involves systematic activities with manpower and machinery, transforming the raw material (gram Dal) into a commercially distinct product (Besan). The court noted that the term "manufacture" was not defined in the Act until the insertion of Section 2(29BA) in 2009, which describes "manufacture" as a process resulting in a new and distinct product with a different name, character, and use. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Idandas vs. Anant Ram Chandra Phadke, which established that converting wheat into flour constitutes manufacturing. Applying this precedent, the court concluded that converting gram Dal into Besan amounts to manufacturing, as it involves a transformation resulting in a new product with a different commercial identity. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to the deduction under Section 80IB(4).

Issue 2: Computation of Profits after Allowing Depreciation under Section 32
The court addressed whether profits eligible for deduction under Section 80IB(4) must be computed after allowing depreciation under Section 32. The revenue argued that depreciation must be deducted to compute eligible profits, as mandated by explanation 5 to Section 32(i)(ii) from the assessment year 2002-03 onwards. The court acknowledged that the allowance of depreciation became mandatory only from April 1, 2002, and the amendment does not apply to earlier years. The court relied on the Madras High Court's decision in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sree Senha Valli Textiles P. Ltd., which held that the mandatory depreciation allowance applies only from the date of the amendment. Therefore, for assessment years prior to 2002-03, the profits eligible for deduction under Section 80IB(4) need not be computed after allowing depreciation.

Issue 3: Employment of Ten or More Workers under Section 80IB(2)(iv)
The court examined whether the assessee complied with the requirement of employing ten or more workers in the manufacturing process for a substantial part of the year, as specified in Section 80IB(2)(iv). The Assessing Officer found that the assessee employed ten or more workers only on 73 days during the year, and some workers were engaged in non-manufacturing activities (e.g., truck drivers and cleaners). The ITAT set aside these findings, suggesting that substantial compliance with the requirement was sufficient. However, the court referred to its previous decisions in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Indus Cosmeceuticals and M/s Amrit Rubber Industries vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, which held that employing ten or more workers for a substantial part of the year is mandatory. Employment for a short period (e.g., two or six months) does not fulfill the requirement. Consequently, the court concluded that the assessee did not comply with the condition of employing ten or more workers for a substantial part of the year, thus answering this question in favor of the revenue.

Conclusion:
The court ruled in favor of the assessee on issues 1 and 2, confirming that the conversion of gram Dal into Besan amounts to manufacture and that profits eligible for deduction under Section 80IB(4) need not be computed after allowing depreciation for years prior to 2002-03. However, on issue 3, the court ruled in favor of the revenue, concluding that the assessee did not meet the requirement of employing ten or more workers for a substantial part of the year. All appeals were disposed of accordingly, with each party bearing its own costs.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates