9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (11) TMI 101X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ear with which we are concerned in this matter is 1977-78. The assessee had set up in the year 1977, a belt reconditioning plant designed for retreading of conveyor belts. The process involved cleaning, inspection, peeling, drying, reconditioning, buffing, vulcanizing and trimming, etc. The life of the belt after such processing was 75 per cent. of a new belt, while the cost of reconditioning was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... whether the precondition regarding prejudice to the Revenue existed when the Commissioner exercised his revisional jurisdiction as also as to whether the Tribunal was right in taking the view that the reconditioned belt was a result of manufacture is correct, have been referred to us. On the question as to whether the recondition of a conveyor belt can be regarded as the result of a process of ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is case as well. Attention was also invited to the observations of the apex court in the case of Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. v. ITO [2000] 245 ITR 538, 544, wherein the court observed, inter alia, thus : "The word 'manufacture' has various shades of meaning but unless defined under the Act it is to be interpreted in the context of the object and the language used in the sections. In the context of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e same as the purpose that the belt before reconditioning was serving. We must, therefore, hold that the Tribunal was not right in taking the view that a new article came into existence as a result of reconditioning of the old belt. As regards the other question, the relief claimed under section 80J of the Act once allowed, would continue to be available to the assessee for a period of seven year ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der section 263, holding that the assessee is eligible for deduction under section 80J ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the Income-tax Officer's order cannot be said to be prejudicial to the Revenue for the assessment year 1977-78 as there is no tax effect ?" in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
