9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 844X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... han Senior Standing Counsel assisted by Ms.V.Pushpa, Junior Standing Counsel For the Respondent : Mr.R.Vasumithran for Mr.N.Inbarajan JUDGMENT DR.VINEET KOTHARI, J. Heard the learned counsel for both sides. 2. The Revenue has filed the present Appeal aggrieved by the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on 7.12.2012 holding in favour of the Assessee that the process of converting raw Urad into Urad Dhal was a manufacturing activity and therefore, the Assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 80IA of the Act. 3. The Appeal was admitted by a co-ordinate Bench of this court by its order dated 22.8.2013, raising the following purported substantial question of law:- Whether on the facts and in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and justifiable reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A). It is confirmed and the grounds of appeal of the Revenue are dismissed. 19. In the result, the Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 5. Now, both the learned counsel submitted that the recently, this court has also taken a view in CIT v. Muthuramalingam Modern Rice Mill ((2019) 105 taxmann.com 39 (Madras)) that the process of converting Paddy into Rice is also a manufacturing activity and therefore, the Assessee was entitled to deduction under Section 80- IA/80-B of the Act. The relevant portion of the said Judgment of this Court is quoted below for ready reference:- 14. On the consideration of case laws relied upon by both the sides and the provisions of the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd Paddy are two different things, but the only contention which the Revenue seeks to raise before us is that the said process of dehusking is not covered by the terms Manufacture . We cannot accept this submission for the simple reason that while the investment in the Industry is made by the Assessee and carrying of industrial activity is not disputed and the article in question viz., husked Paddy and Rice are two different articles having different value, what can be the reason to deny them the benefit under Section 80 IA and 80 IB of the Act. We see no reason, much less any justifiable reason, for denial of the said benefit to the Assesee before us. 17. We find that the definition of the word Manufacture though was not available in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Assessee was entitled to the benefit under Section 35 of the Income Tax Act, which was designed for development of agricultural research specified thereunder. Similarly, the Division Bench of Karnataka High Court, in the case of B.Raghurama Chetty case (supra) held that the said process of dehusking and milling of Paddy did not bring about new and different article and therefore, Paddy could not be said to have been consumed in the process of manufacture of Rice and hence, it will not amount to violation of the provision of Section 6 (1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act and the Assessee would not be liable to pay Additional Sale Tax. 18. Therefore, we are of the opinion that it would depend upon the context in which the words Man ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
