9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (4) TMI 91X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... these items, investment allowance of Rs. 50,000 was claimed, which the ITO rejected. The Commissioner (Appeals) also rejected this claim in the appeal by the assessee. The assessee is renewing its prayer before us by way of this second appeal. 3. Shri Ganesh, the learned counsel for the assessee, contended that both mechanical and human activity are involved in the process of exhibition of films in theatres and that the sound and visual image produced in the process of exhibition should be taken as an 'article' or 'thing' within the meaning of section 32A(2)(a)(iii). It was also his argument that 'article' or 'thing' is not defined either in the Act or any other statute and that the dictionary meaning of these two terms is wide enough to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of films in a theatre is not 'engaged in the business of manufacture' in view of what has been stated by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Delhi Cloth General Mills Co. Ltd. AIR 1963 SC 791. Their Lordships said : " ...The word 'manufacture' used as a verb is generally understood to mean as 'bringing into existence a new substance' and does not mean merely 'to produce some change in a substance', however minor in consequence the change may be. This distinction is well brought about in a passage thus quoted in Permanent Edition of Words and Phrases, Vol. 26, from an American Judgment. The passage runs thus : 'Manufacture' implies a change but every change is not manufacture and yet every change of an article is the result of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rial should be used to turn out something altogether different and that it is enough if human activity is spent on something which may be subjected to a process in order that something else is brought out. To repeat, the attempt of Shri Ganesh had been that human element involved in projecting a film with the help of a projector to bring about vision and sound effect for the benefit of the audience is sufficient to say that an 'article' or 'thing' is produced. 9. It was also the point of Shri Ganesh that 'article' or 'thing' need not be a corporeal property and that even incorporeal property such as copy-right could be goods as pointed out by the Madras High Court in A. V. Meiyappan v. CCT [1967] 20 STC 115. 10. Elaborating his argument ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation or argument, the projection of films in a theatre could be said to be an industrial undertaking. Photo copying or zeroxing is held not to involve any industrial activity by the Tribunal, Bombay Bench in the case of ITO v. Daks Copy Services (P.) Ltd. [1984] 8 ITD 245, we may also usefully refer to the decision of the Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench in the case of New Indian Textile Products v. ITO [1982] 1 ITD 837 where development rebate had been claimed more or less on a similar situation and the following stated therein is worth of note : " The meaning given to the word 'process', relied upon by the assessee, was not appropriate in the context of taxation statute dealing with the definition of an 'industrial company', which emphasises ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
