2020 (12) TMI 674 - HC - Income Tax

Disallowance of claim u/s 10B - assessee has not satisfied the requirements of said provision to claim deduction u/s 10B as the assessee was not involved in manufacturing activity and was formed by splitting up of existing company? - tribunal is correct in law in setting aside the disallowance of claim under Section 10B - HELD THAT - CIT(Appeals) has examined the issue of manufacture / production of any article or thing and after referring to various decisions has recoded a finding that the activity of the assessee amounts to manufacture / production of articles or things. CIT (Appeals) has recorded following reasons for arriving at the conclusion that the assessee is entitled to benefit of Section 10B. The tribunal has held that in respect of first two contingencies, undoubtedly, there is a production or manufacture in the nature of a compound. However, in respect of third contingency by placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in 'CIT VS. M.C.BUDHI RAJA AND CO. 1993 (9) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT it has held that even in respect of third contingency, it can be held that the assessee is engaged in the activity of production. Thus, the order passed by the CIT (Appeals) has been upheld. It is pertinent to mention that in the memo of appeal filed before the tribunal, the revenue has not assailed the finding recorded in favour of the assessee that there has been no splitting up of the business, therefore, the question of remitting the matter to the tribunal does not arise. In HERO VINOTH (MINOR) VS. SESHAMMAL 2006 (5) TMI 478 - SUPREME COURT while dealing with the scope of Section 260A of the Act, it was held that this court will not interfere with findings of the court, unless the courts have ignored material evidence or acted on no evidence or have drawn wrong inferences from proved facts by applying the law erroneously or the decision is based on no evidence. - Decided against the revenue and in favour of the assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the tribunal is correct in law in setting aside the disallowance of claim under Section 10B even when the assessee has not satisfied the requirements of said provision to claim deduction under Section 10B as the assessee was not involved in manufacturing activity and was formed by splitting up of existing company?

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Tribunal's Decision on Disallowance of Claim under Section 10B
The primary issue revolves around the correctness of the tribunal's decision to set aside the disallowance of the claim under Section 10B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The revenue contends that the assessee did not satisfy the requirements for claiming the deduction under Section 10B, as it was not involved in manufacturing activity and was formed by splitting up an existing company.

Factual Background:
The assessee, engaged in contract research related activities, filed a return of income for the Assessment Year 2005-06. The Assessing Officer (AO) noted that the assessee was involved in providing contract research services and categorized its receipts under contract research fees and sale of compounds. The AO disallowed the deduction claimed under Section 10B, arguing that the assessee was not engaged in manufacturing or production of articles or things and that Unit-II was formed by splitting up Unit-I.

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Findings:
The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) overturned the AO's decision, stating that Unit-II was a distinct unit with separate premises and customers. It was further held that the output generated by the assessee in the form of research output and chemical compounds constituted manufacturing or production of articles or things, satisfying the conditions for deduction under Section 10B.

Tribunal's Decision:
The tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), dismissing the revenue's appeal. The tribunal noted that the assessee's activities amounted to manufacturing or production of articles or things, and that Unit-II was not formed by splitting up Unit-I.

Revenue's Contentions:
The revenue argued that the assessee's activities did not amount to manufacturing or production and that the assessee did not own the compounds, which were incidental to the research. They also contended that the assessee did not comply with the mandatory conditions under Section 10B, including the condition that the unit should not be formed by splitting up an existing business.

Assessee's Defense:
The assessee maintained that both Unit-I and Unit-II were engaged in contract research and that the activities qualified as manufacturing or production. They also argued that the revenue had previously allowed deductions for Unit-I under Section 10B and could not take a different stand for subsequent years. The assessee pointed out that the finding regarding the splitting up of business was not challenged before the tribunal, negating the need for remand.

Court's Analysis:
The court examined the relevant provisions of Section 10B, which require the assessee to satisfy conditions such as manufacturing or production of articles or things, not being formed by splitting up an existing business, and not being formed by the transfer of used machinery or plant. The court noted that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had found that Unit-II was a new unit with no transfer of old machinery and that the assessee's activities amounted to manufacturing or production.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the tribunal was correct in setting aside the disallowance of the claim under Section 10B. The findings of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the tribunal were based on substantial evidence, and there was no perversity in the concurrent findings. The substantial question of law was answered against the revenue and in favor of the assessee, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

Summary:
The Karnataka High Court upheld the tribunal's decision to allow the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 10B, concluding that the assessee's activities constituted manufacturing or production of articles or things and that Unit-II was not formed by splitting up an existing business. The court found no merit in the revenue's appeal and dismissed it.

← Previous Next →