Case Details

Citation(s)
2009 SLG 2280 2009 SLD 2280 (2009) 308 ITR 222
Punjab and Haryana High Court
IT APPEAL No. 505 OF 2007€  OCTOBER 31, 2008
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL AND L.N. MITTAL, JJ.

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

Commissioner of IncomE tax, Faridabad

v.

Mahesh Chandra Sharma*

Law:

Section:

Section 80-IB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Deductions - Profits and gains from industrial undertakings other than infrastructure development undertakings - Assessment year 2001-02 - Assessee was engaged in manufacturing of motorcycle wheels by assembling raw materials/components, viz., rim, tyre, tube, bearing, drum, spoke, nipple and collar, by carrying out intermittent processes - Whether process of assembling carried out by assessee amounted to manufacture or production of an article and, accordingly, he would be entitled to deduction under section 80-IB- Held, yes FACTS The assessee was engaged in manufacturing of motorcycle wheels by assembling raw materials/components, viz., rim, tyre, tube, bearing, drum, spoke, nipples and collar by carrying out intermittent processes. For the relevant assessment year, he claimed deduction under section 80-IB. The Assessing Officer disallowed his claim on the ground that assembling work done by the assessee did not amount to manufacturing activity which was a condition for claiming deduction under section 80-IB. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the assessee's claim. On the revenue's appeal, the Tribunal upheld the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) holding that the process of assembling carried out by the assessee amounted to manufacture or production of an article. On revenue's appeal : HELD The contention of the revenue, that the product in question was 'wheel' and continued to be wheel and the original commodity continued to be as it was and, thus, no manufacture was involved, could not be accepted. [Para 7] In the absence of any definition in the Act, the word 'manufacture' used in section 80-IB has to be given an ordinary meaning. [Para 10] Commonly accepted meaning given to the word 'manufacture' is when a new and different article emerges, having distinctive name, character or use. In the instant case, the Tribunal held that a distinct article with distinctive name, character and use had emerged. The Tribunal had arrived at a finding of fact. [Para 12] Hence, the appeal was to be dismissed. [Para 14] CASE REVIEW Indubhai T. Vasa (HUF) v. ITO[2006] 282 ITR 120 (Guj)followed and relied upon. CASES…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492