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

TMI Blog

Home

2020 (2) TMI 848

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ssing; that what is purchased as raw material and what is exported as a product for export are totally different items. The process that the assessee had undertaken clearly points out the irreversible nature of the final end product from a raw material purchased - Decided against Revenue. - Dr. Justice Vineet Kothari And Mr. Justice R. Suresh Kumar For the Appellant : M/s.V.Pushpa Junior Standing Counsel For the Respondent : Notice served No appearance JUDGMENT DR.VINEET KOTHARI, J. This Appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai dated 08.09.2010 for the Assessment Year 2007-08 whereby the learned Tribunal held that the Assessee is entitled to benefit under Section 10B of t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... reful reading of the assessment order that though the Assessing Officer had questioned the purchases as claimed by the appellant firm, no specific disallowances had been made. So long as the Assessing Officer had accepted the profits as shown by the appellant firm as correct, it is considered not necessary to deal with this issue separately. 4.The learned counsel for the Appellant/Revenue however fairly submitted that the issue has already been decided against the Revenue in the Appeals related to other assessment years of the same Assessee and copy of one such judgment rendered on 2 July, 2013 in Commissioner of Income Tax, Ward-XIII (2), Chennai Vs. Deco De Trend [2013] 37 taxmann.com 33 (Madras) is cited at the bar. A Coordinate Bench of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) that the word 'manufacture' has to be understood in common parlance, there being no definition of the word 'manufacture' in the Act. Even if one looks at the definition of 'manufacture', as given under Explanation 3 to Section 10B, as it existed prior to its substitution in 2001, we find, the term was defined inclusively that any process or assembling or recording of programme or disc, tape, perforated media or other information storage device are brought under the definition of 'manufacture'. In any event, with the definition of 'manufacture' available as under Explanation 4 to Section 10B of the Income Tax Act, inserted by Finance Act, 2003, with effect from 1.4.2004, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Income Tax Act cannot be denied. 18. In the decision reported in 251 ITR 323 (Aspinwall Co. Ltd. V. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)), the Apex Court observed the word manufacture has not been defined in the Income Tax Act. In the absence of a definition, the word manufacture has to be given a meaning as is understood in common parlance. It is to be understood as meaning the production of articles for use from raw or prepared materials by giving such materials new forms, qualities or combinations whether by hand labour or machines. If the change made in the article results in a new and different article then it would amount to manufacturing activity. Thus the Apex Court pointed out that if the commodity can no longer be regarded as the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... p of a company to a new entity, namely, firm. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal had looked into the facts of the case and ultimately came to the conclusion that the mere presence of three of the Directors as partners, by itself, would not make the firm as one, split up from the company and both the entities deal in different graded products and they were one and the same # while the company dealt with low end products, the assessee deals with high end products. The Tribunal, as a final fact finding authority, has also pointed out that the firm was constituted with the capital contribution by the partners from their personal funds. Thus, we do not find neither the presence of the partners not the products dealt .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates